Case: Perera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 
Outcome: referred to
The first question that must be determined is whether there was a departure from the relevant standard of interpretation. The interpretation before the Tribunal must be so incompetent that it prevents the appellant from giving evidence: Perera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 at [38] . Further the departure from the requisite standard of interpretation must relate to matters which were significant to the appellant's case in the Tribunal as well as to the Tribunal's decision: Perera at [45]. Perera was cited with apparent approval by the Full Court in Liu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1362 ; (2001) 113 FCR 541 at [44] . That passage was itself cited by the Full Court in SCAR at [34]. 30 Perera does not, at [37] or at all, contrary to the reasons of the Federal Magistrate at [57] stand for the proposition that errors in interpreting can be rectified. Nonetheless, I would accept that in certain circumstances errors of that kind may be rectified. This could be done by written submissions to the Tribunal after the hearing: Applicant NAAF of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] HCA 62 ; (2004) 221 CLR 1 at [25] per McHugh, Gummow, Callinan and Heydon JJ and per Kirby J at [75]. It could also be done by the provision of a corrected transcript accepted by the Tribunal as accurate. Indeed, that is what occurred in this case in respect to the question of when the appellant commenced the practice of Falun Gong in China. Such errors however cannot always be rectified in this way and a further oral hearing at which an applicant gives evidence may be necessary. It will at least depend on the nature and extent of the errors. 37 Furthermore, a witness whose answers appear to be unresponsive, incoherent, or inconsistent may well appear to lack candour, even though the unresponsiveness, incoherence or inconsistencies are due to incompetent interpretation: Perera at [49]. The negative impression in the mind of the Tribunal Member conveyed by the appellant's answers, incorrectly interpreted, is, in my opinion, difficult if not impossible to eradicate, after the hearing. Such a negative impression, in one area of evidence, such as the question of when the appellant began to practice Falun Gong in China, will often affect a decision-maker's conclusions in other areas. It is impossible to discern the affect such impressions made at the time may have had on the Tribunal's conclusions as a whole: cf Applicant NAAF of 2002 at [40]. The subsequent characterisation of this evidence as a "misunderstanding" by the Tribunal does not inevitably overcome the unfavourable impression obtained at the hearing by the Tribunal concerning the appellant's credit. 38 The Federal Magistrate, in his reasons at [46] and [53] correctly, in my view, said that the standard of interpreting "left a lot to be desired" and constituted "significant errors in interpreting". However, his Honour at [57]-[58] stated: Quite clearly, the Tribunal has given favourable consideration to the applicants' submissions about the inadequacy of the interpreting and has taken appropriate steps to deal with the matters raised. The Tribunal appears to have done exactly what the applicants asked it to do. If errors in interpreting are made, then they can be rectified (see Perera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 at [37] per Kenny J). Whilst it appears that there were errors on the part of the interpreter at the hearing, I am satisfied that the Tribunal took appropriate action in dealing with those errors, as the applicants requested. As a result, the applicants were not deprived of their ability to give evidence due to interpreting errors and there is no breach of s 425 of the Act . There is no jurisdictional error. 39 These reasons, with the greatest of respect, do not grapple with the problems which have been identified. They do no more than accept at face value, from the Tribunal's reasons, that the problems caused by poor interpretation had been cured by provision of the transcript. The provision of the transcript was no more, as the covering letter, in effect, said, than an attempt to overcome the negative impression (of the appellant's claims) created by the deficiencies in the interpreting. The covering letter from the appellant's migration agent to which I have referred did not purport to be a cure-all. The letter concluded by inviting the Tribunal to contact the writer, Mr Simon Jeans, if it required any further information or assistance. It did not take up this invitation. There is no independent analysis by the Court below of the transcript and the reasons. In my opinion, this was necessary to the disposition of the application for judicial review. 40 The Federal Magistrate at [41] appears to have placed some weight on the fact that the appellant did not ask for a further hearing to deal with the interpretation problems and that the Tribunal "did exactly what the appellant had asked it to do", namely to consider the transcript. The first respondent, too, submits that in the absence of such a request it was appropriate for the Tribunal to proceed as it did. The covering letter, as I have already indicated, is not to that effect.