Case: Tin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2000] FCA 1109
Outcome: cited
There is no reason to doubt that 'information' in s 424A(1) is used in its ordinary sense of knowledge communicated or received concerning some fact or circumstance. In VAF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 206 ALR 471 (" VAF ") at 476-477 [24], Finn and Stone JJ set out the following propositions about the meaning of the term 'information' in its s 424A(1) setting: "(i) the purpose of s 424A is to provide in part a statutory procedural analogue to the common law of procedural fairness: Paul v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1196 ; (2001) 113 FCR 396 at 429-30 [104] ; [2001] FCA 1196 ; 64 ALD 289 at 318. However the obligation imposed is not coextensive with that which might be imposed by the common law to avoid practical injustice: VAAC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 74 ; BC200301782; (ii) the word 'information' in s 424A(1) has the same meaning as in s 424; Win v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 56 ; (2001) 105 FCR 212 at 218 [20] ; and in this setting it refers to knowledge of relevant facts or circumstances communicated to or received by the Tribunal: Tin v Minister for Immigration and Indigenous Affairs [2000] FCA 1109 ; BC200004607 at [3]; irrespective of whether it is reliable or has a sound factual basis: Win , at 217-18 [19]-[22]; and (iii) the word does not encompass the Tribunal's subjective appraisals, thought processes or determinations: Tin at [54]; Paul at FCR 428 [95]; ALD 317; Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1679 ; BC200107472 at [25]; approved [2002] FCAFC 120 ; BC200203793; nor does it extend to identified gaps, defects or lack of detail or specificity in evidence or to conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in weighing up the evidence by reference to those gaps, etc: WAGP of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 266 ; (2002) 124 FCR 276 at 282-4 [26] - [29] ." The third proposition has not been doubted but its application has produced some fine distinctions. 37 In Paul v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1196 ; (2001) 113 FCR 396 (" Paul ") at 428 [95], Allsop J, with whom Heerey J agreed, said: "... I agree with the distinction drawn by Sackville J in Tin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs that the information of which particulars must be provided is information or knowledge that has come to or been gained by the Tribunal and is not the subjective appraisal or thought process of the Tribunal ... However, the distinction can become very fine. If the subjective thought processes of the Tribunal are as they are because of the perceived importance of some piece of knowledge, those thought processes may merely reveal the relevance (for the purposes of s 424(A)(1)(b)) of information (for s 424A(1)(a)), requiring the Tribunal to give particulars of that information and to explain its relevance." 70 There is, in my opinion, a valid distinction between the HRA letter and the Tribunal's subjective evaluation of the weight that should be attached to it in the light of the appellant's oral evidence to the Tribunal. Such a distinction is supported by VAF per Finn and Stone JJ at 476-477 [24]; WAGP per Marshall, Weinberg and Jacobson JJ at 282-283 [26] [29]; Tin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2000] FCA 1109 per Sackville J at [53] [54]; and Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 120 per Carr, Moore and Marshall JJ. It is also consistent with the statutory purpose of s 424A , which (to paraphrase the language of Allsop J in Paul at [104]) is to ensure that the applicant is fairly informed of information adverse to his or her case so that investigation may be made, and steps may be taken, if possible, to meet it. By itself, the HRA letter was not the reason, or a part of the reason, for the Tribunal's affirmation of the delegate's decision. Nor was there any point of time prior to the Tribunal's decision at which the Tribunal would have considered that the HRA letter might have constituted the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the delegate's decision. It follows that the HRA letter does not fall within the scope of s 424A.