Case: Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd v Daniel (1992) 34 FCR 212
Outcome: referred to
Information will, it seems to me, have been a part of the reason for affirming the decision under review if it provided the basis, or part of the basis, for any finding that formed an essential link in the chain of reasoning that led the Tribunal to affirm the decision under review (cf Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd v Daniel (1992) 34 FCR 212 at 220-221 per Black CJ). 27 The present case is one in which it is not easy to ascertain precisely the Tribunal's reason, or the constituent parts of the Tribunal's reason, for affirming the decision under review. In particular it is not easy to ascertain whether the information provided in the appellant's visa application provided the basis for any finding that formed an essential link in the chain of reasoning that led the Tribunal to affirm the decision of the delegate. 28 The final link in the Tribunal's chain of reasoning was that it was not satisfied that the appellant's fear of persecution by the Indian authorities was well-founded. The Tribunal gave two immediate reasons for its lack of satisfaction in this regard. First, that there have been significant changes in the Punjab with the consequence that Sikh militancy is no longer active and even militants who have served their sentences live a normal life. Secondly, that the Tribunal did not accept that the police or the authorities generally were looking for the appellant when he left India or subsequently. There is no reason to think that the information provided in the appellant's visa application provided the basis for the Tribunal's findings concerning changes in the Punjab or the authorities' apparent lack of interest in the appellant. 29 However, it is necessary to 'unbundle' the Tribunal's reasons for decision to determine which of the grounds upon which the appellant claimed to fear persecution the Tribunal had in contemplation when it concluded that it was not satisfied that his fear was well-founded. It seems clear enough that the Tribunal had in contemplation the appellant's claim that BK hid ammunition on his property and his claim that he had fed BK members because it stated that it was prepared to accept those claims (see [12] above). However, it is far from clear that the Tribunal had in contemplation his claim to have been a member of BK. 30 The preferable view, in my opinion, is that the Tribunal did not have in contemplation the appellant's claim to have been a member of BK when it concluded that it was not satisfied that his fear of persecution was well-founded. I have formed this view on two bases. First, the Tribunal had earlier explicitly rejected his claim to have been a member of BK. By contrast, it was prepared to accept 'for the present purpose' other aspects of the appellant's claims notwithstanding that it found them difficult to accept. Secondly, the Tribunal referred to militants 'who have served their sentences' living a normal life in the Punjab now. The inference arises that the Tribunal did not turn its mind to whether it was satisfied that BK members or former members, or militants generally, who had not been charged or sentenced were living a normal life in the Punjab now.