Federal Court of Australia

MTCQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 1203

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The applicant’s application for judicial review is dismissed.

2.    The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RANGIAH J:

1    The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the respondent (the Minister), made under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), to set aside a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) and cancel the applicant’s visa.

2    The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom who has resided in Australia since 1964. The applicant was 74 years of age at the time of the relevant decision by the Minister.

3    The applicant’s sole ground of review asserts that, while the Minister claimed to have considered information given by the applicant in relation to the AAT proceeding, the Minister had in fact not done so, thereby exercising his power in a manner that was not logical or rational.

4    Although the applicant appears to have had legal assistance in preparing his originating application, he was self-represented at the hearing.

Background

5    On 5 April 2022, the applicant was convicted in the District Court of Queensland of six counts of, “indecent treatment of children under 16, child under 12 years, lineal descendent/guardian/carer – domestic violence offence”. The applicant was sentenced to three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, suspended after 14 months, for an operational period of four years.

6    On 28 September 2022, the applicant’s visa was cancelled by the Minister pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Act. The applicant made a request for the revocation of that decision, which was refused by the Minister on 12 December 2023 under s 501CA(4) of the Act.

7    The applicant subsequently applied to the AAT for review of the non-revocation decision. On 5 March 2024, the AAT made a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision on the basis that it was satisfied there was “another reason” for that decision to be revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. In the AAT’s reasons published on 21 March 2024, the factors relied on by the AAT included an assessment that there was a low risk of the applicant reoffending, the applicant’s age and health and the isolation he would experience if returned to the United Kingdom.

8    On 17 June 2024, the Minister exercised the discretion under s 501BA of the Act to set aside the AAT’s decision and to again cancel the applicant’s visa (the cancellation decision).

9    On 22 July 2024, the applicant filed an originating application for judicial review of the Minister’s cancellation decision under s 476A of the Act. An amended originating application was then filed on 10 October 2024.

10    The hearing took place on 9 December 2024 and I reserved my judgment at the conclusion of the parties’ submissions. At the request of the Minister, a case management hearing was subsequently conducted on 20 February 2025 in relation to a jurisdictional issue arising from the decision in XKTK v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 14. The Minister submitted that a writ of certiorari could only be issued as relief ancillary to a writ of mandamus or prohibition. For this reason, I ordered that:

The applicant’s amended originating application filed 10 October 2024 be further amended to include a claim that prohibition should issue to prevent the respondent, his delegate, and officers from acting upon, or giving effect to, or proceeding further upon the decision dated 17 June 2024.

The statutory provisions

11    The Minister’s cancellation decision was made pursuant to s 501BA, which provides:

501BA Cancellation of visa—setting aside and substitution of non-adverse decision under section 501CA

(1)    This section applies if:

(a)    a delegate of the Minister; or

(b)    the Administrative Appeals Tribunal;

makes a decision under section 501CA (the original decision) to revoke a decision under subsection 501(3A) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.

Action by Minister—natural justice does not apply

(2)    The Minister may set aside the original decision and cancel a visa that has been granted to the person if:

(a)    the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of:

(i)    paragraph 501(6)(a), on the basis of paragraph 501(7)(a), (b) or (c); or

(ii)    paragraph 501(6)(e); and

(b)    the Minister is satisfied that the cancellation is in the national interest.

(3)    The rules of natural justice do not apply to a decision under subsection (2).

…

The Minister’s reasons for his cancellation decision

12    The Minister was satisfied that the applicant did not pass the character test by operation of s 501(6)(a) of the Act, on the basis of s 501(7)(c).

13    The Minister then considered whether he was satisfied that cancelling the applicant’s visa was in the national interest. The Minister noted that “national interest” is not defined for the purposes of s 501BA and stated:

18.    In determining whether it is in the national interest to cancel [the applicant’s] visa, I have considered the need to protect the Australian community. In doing so, I considered the seriousness of [the applicant’s] criminal conduct having regard to the circumstances and nature of the conduct, the likelihood of him reoffending, and the risk he poses to the Australian community if such a likelihood eventuated.

14    The Minister proceeded to consider the seriousness of the criminal conduct, finding:

29.    I consider that sexual crimes and crimes of family violence are viewed very seriously by the Australian government and the Australian community. In particular, crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (in this case, a young female child) are viewed seriously. I find [the applicant’s] criminal offending to be very serious.

15    The Minister then considered the risk that may be posed by the applicant to the Australian community. The Minister stated:

39.     I consider there is a real likelihood that [the applicant] will reoffend. [The applicant] suffers from several physical and mental health issues. Most relevantly, he suffers from paedophilia and alcohol dependency disorder which are both very serious conditions which have not been effectively treated. I consider these issues increase the risk that [the applicant] will reoffend. I consider that [the applicant’s] lack of insight and genuine remorse and his apparent focus on the consequences of his offending for himself, rather than the victim, are concerning. I consider that these issues increase the risk that [the applicant] will reoffend. While I accept that [the applicant] will have a family support network which will act as a protective factor against reoffending, I am not satisfied that these arrangements will permanently remove [the applicant] from opportunities to reoffend. I share the AAT’s concerns with the psychologist reports as discussed in the AAT decision…Having regard to these considerations, I find that there remains a real likelihood that [the applicant] will reoffend. Even if that risk is characterised as “low”, I find that [the applicant’s] conduct is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.

(Emphasis in original.)

16    Turning to consider the expectations of the Australian community, the Minister noted that the applicant arrived in Australia aged 14 and accepted at [46] of his reasons that, “the Australian community will generally have a higher level of tolerance of criminal conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community most of their life”. However, the Minister concluded that, “Having regard to the nature of [the applicant’s] very serious offending, I find that the Australian community would expect [the applicant] to no longer have the privilege of holding a visa in Australia.”

17    The Minister was satisfied that cancelling the applicant’s visa was in the national interest, saying:

49.     …I have considered the nature and seriousness of [the applicant’s] conduct and concluded that it is very serious. I have considered the harm which would result if [the applicant] reoffended and the government’s concerns regarding sexual and violent offences against children. I have also considered the risk of [the applicant] reoffending and found that there is a real likelihood that [the applicant] will reoffend. I have also considered the expectations of the Australian community taking into account that [the applicant] has lived most of his life in Australia.

50.     Having regard to all of the above, I conclude that the use of my discretionary power to cancel [the applicant’s] Class BF transitional (permanent) visa is in the national interest.

18    The Minister then set out the other considerations relevant to the exercise of his discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa, including the best interests of minor children, the applicant’s ties to Australia and the legal consequences of the decision, including impediments the applicant may face if he is removed to the United Kingdom.

19    In particular, the Minister observed that the applicant has five grandchildren in Australia who are (or were) all minors. The applicant does not have contact with his four granddaughters but does have a “close and loving relationship” with his grandson. The Minister gave this consideration “minimal weight” given the nature of the applicant’s offending and his non-parental role in the grandson’s life.

20    The Minister considered that the applicant has significant ties to Australia, having resided here for 60 years at the time of the decision, with both immediate family and some twenty extended family members all permanently residing in Australia. The Minister found that this consideration weighed “very strongly against” the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

21    The Minister also found the applicant will face practical, financial and emotional hardship if returned to Scotland due to his age, health issues and likely isolation which would present significant impediments to the applicant establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards.

22    However, the Minister concluded that:

75.     I have weighed up the above countervailing factors against the national interest considerations. In doing so, I considered the very serious nature of the crimes committed being sexual and violent offences against a child and [the applicant’s] extremely limited engagement in any form of rehabilitation.

…

78.     Noting that [the applicant] has lived in Australia for most of his life from a young age, I have taken into account that the Australian community may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by [the applicant] than it would otherwise. However, I am also cognisant that where harm could be inflicted on the Australian community, even strong countervailing considerations are generally insufficient to warrant not cancelling the visa.

23    Accordingly, the Minister decided to set aside the AAT’s decision and cancel the applicant’s visa.

The ground of review

24    The applicant’s Amended Originating Application contains the following ground:

Grounds of application

In making a decision to set aside a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s visa, the respondent acted in a way that was illogical and irrational.

Particulars

(a)    The respondent (at paragraph 10 of the decision) claimed to have given consideration to information given by the applicant in relation to the AAT proceedings which resulted in the AAT revoking the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa.

(b)    In fact, the respondent did not have access to, nor did he give consideration to, the information given by the applicant in relation to the AAT proceedings which resulted in the AAT revoking the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa.

(c)    The respondent did not have access to, nor did he give consideration to, the following information given by the applicant in relation to the AAT proceedings:

(i)    The applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 14 January 2024.

(ii)    An undated letter from the applicant’s sister…entitled “Return to our Queensland Home”.

(iii)    Summary Psychological Treatment letter regarding services delivered to the applicant by Loretta Sassi, Clinical Psychologist Registrar, dated 14 February 2024.

(d)    It was illogical and irrational for the respondent to conclude that the AAT bore on matters he determined to be relevant, and to state that the material had been considered, when the true state of affairs was that the AAT information was not before him and had not been considered at all: LJTZ v Minister for Immigration [2022] FCA 1209; 179 ALD 299 at [50] (Charlesworth J).

(Underlining in original.)

The submissions

25    The Amended Originating Application asserts that the illogicality or irrationality arises at [10] of the Minister’s reasons, which states, “I have, however, given consideration to information given by [the applicant] in relation to…the AAT proceedings…”. The applicant contends that the Minister did not in fact have before him, and therefore did not consider, certain information contained in documents provided by the applicant to the AAT.

26    The applicant alleges that the Minister’s exercise of power under s 501BA of the Act was affected by the same error identified in LJTZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1209 (LJTZ), namely that it was illogical for the Minister to state that certain material had been considered when the true state of affairs was that the material had not been considered at all.

27    In his written submissions, the applicant also submits, “I do not believe [the Minister’s] review of my character or if they took into consideration any of the evidence given at the AAT Court hearing, or the Tribunals [sic] decision to allow me to stay in Australia”. I understand the applicant’s submission to be that the Minister asserted that he took into account information provided to the AAT, when the Minister had not in fact taken any of the evidence the applicant adduced into account.

28    The Minister does not dispute that the documents identified in the applicant’s Amended Originating Application were not before him when making the cancellation decision. However, the Minister asserts that he considered the information contained in those documents while making the cancellation decision, submitting:

The Applicant therefore reads the words “information given by [the applicant]” as necessarily referring to the actual documents that were tendered in the Tribunal… [T]he impugned paragraph does not constitute a statement that the Minister had regard to the actual documents that were tendered in the Tribunal. Rather, it is a statement that the Minister had regard to the Tribunal’s decision, or alternatively the information provided by the Applicant to the Tribunal in the form in which it was summarised by the Tribunal in its reasons.

(Emphasis in original.)

29    The Minister submitted orally that the phrase “AAT proceedings” should be taken to mean, “the outcome and the reasons of the AAT”, and not as encompassing all of the evidence and other material that was before the AAT.

30    The Minister submits that the present case is distinguishable from LJTZ, as, in that case, there had been no regard to material that was before the AAT, in any form, at all.

31    The written and oral submissions of the applicant also make further claims regarding the injustice the Minister’s decision causes him personally. In response, the Minister submits that such claims misapprehend the function of judicial review.

Consideration

32    I will deal first with the submissions made by the applicant about the personal injustice and suffering that the Minister’s cancellation decision will cause him.

33    I accept the Minister’s contention that these submissions misapprehend the function of the Court, which is concerned with the legality of the exercise of power, not the protection of individual interests: Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 at 36 (Brennan J).

34    The Minister’s cancellation decision can only be set aside by this Court if jurisdictional error is demonstrated: that is, error in the statutory decision-making process which results in the decision maker exceeding the limits of the authority conferred by the statute: Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 264 CLR 123 at [24]; MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021) 273 CLR 506 at [29] and [51]; Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 263 CLR 1 at [39].

35    Further, the applicant’s submission that the Minister’s cancellation decision creates harsh and unfair consequences does not provide a basis upon which the ground of irrationality or illogicality can be made out. As was stated in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [66], “a standard of legal reasonableness does not involve substituting a court’s view as to how a discretion should be exercised for that of a decision-maker”.

36    Therefore, while it is clear the applicant’s removal to the United Kingdom will cause him very substantial hardship, that cannot affect the outcome of the application for judicial review.

37    I will turn to the ground of review contained in the applicant’s Amended Originating Application, which asserts that the Minister conducted the fact finding task attending the exercise of his power in a manner that was not logical or rational.

38    The Minister stated at [9] and [10] of his reasons for decision that:

9.     In this case, I chose to proceed without giving [the applicant] an opportunity to be heard before making my decision. I am cognisant that as a consequence, [the applicant] has not had the opportunity to advance reasons why an adverse decision should not now be made.

10.     I have, however, given consideration to information given by [the applicant] in relation to the original request for revocation and the AAT proceedings which resulted in the AAT revoking the decision to cancel [the applicant’s] visa.

39    The applicant submits that three documents he had placed before the AAT were not before the Minister, and that the Minister, accordingly, did not consider the information contained in them. The three documents were:

(a)    the applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 14 January 2024;

(b)    an undated letter from the applicant’s sister, entitled “Return to our Queensland Home”; and

(c)    a “psychological treatment letter” from a clinical psychologist, Ms Loretta Sassi, dated 14 February 2024.

40    The Minister accepts that those documents were before the AAT, but were not before him when he made his cancellation decision.

41    The applicant places substantial reliance on the judgment in LJTZ. In that case, the Minister’s reasons for a visa cancellation decision stated that:

10.     In this case, I chose to proceed without giving [the applicant] an opportunity to be heard before making my decision. I am cognisant that as a consequence, [the applicant] has not had the opportunity to advance reasons why an adverse decision should not be made, including because of the impact such a decision would have on him and his family. In this instance [the applicant’s] family includes: his two minor children and his elderly mother.

11.    I have, however, given consideration to representations made by [the applicant] in relation to the original decision and in the AAT proceedings which resulted in the AAT revoking the decision to cancel [the applicant’s] visa.

42    It may be seen that the terms of [10] in this case are quite similar to those of [11] in LJTZ. The differences are that, in this case, the Minister stated that he had regard to “information”, rather than “representations”; and had regard to information given by the applicant “in relation to”, rather than “in”, the AAT proceedings. The first of those differences is significant.

43    In LJTZ, Charlesworth J observed:

[35]    …Each of the particulars proceeds from the factual premise that the Minister did not in fact consider the submissions the applicant made in the proceedings before the Tribunal (the Tribunal information), notwithstanding the assertion at [11] of his Reasons…that he had done so.

[36]    …Here, it is not disputed that the Tribunal information was not before the Minister. It is not disputed that the Minister had no regard to it, notwithstanding the statement at [11] of the Reasons. The statement at [11] is simply untrue.

44    It may be seen that Charlesworth J interpreted the statement at [11] that the Minister had “given consideration to representations”, as a statement that the Minister had considered “the submissions the applicant made in the proceedings”.

45    Justice Charlesworth observed at [38] that:

…it is illogical in the ordinary sense of the word for an administrative decision-maker to state that consideration has been given to evidentiary material in circumstances where no such consideration has been given.

46    In such circumstances, Charlesworth J concluded:

[50]    Considered in the proper statutory context, I consider the illogicality at [11] constitutes a breach of a condition affecting the exercise of the power, namely that the Minister conduct the fact finding task attending the exercise of the power in a manner that is logical and rational. It was nonsensical for the Minister to conclude that the Tribunal information bore on the matters he determined to be relevant, and to state that the material had been considered, when the true state of affairs was that the Tribunal information was not before him and had not been considered at all. I would arrive at that conclusion irrespective of whether the assertion was knowingly false.

…

[52]    The Reasons…may be fairly understood as expressing a view that by considering the Tribunal information the Minister has in fact had regard to the most recent of the applicant’s statements that were then available to him. Implicitly, the Minister stated that he had regard to submissions made before the Tribunal resulting in the very decision the Minister was contemplating setting aside, such that the matters the applicant raised in disputing the merits of the April 2020 decision had been taken into account. The Minister then purported to take that false state of affairs into account in the exercise of his discretion not to afford the applicant an opportunity to be heard before cancelling his visa.

47    In this case, the applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, the letter of support from the applicant’s sister and the treatment letter of a psychologist were before the AAT, but not before the Minister when making his decision. Accordingly, the Minister did not directly consider those documents.

48    The issue is whether the Minister’s statement that he had given, “consideration to information given by [the applicant] in relation to…the AAT proceedings” was untrue: cf. LJTZ at [36]. That depends on what the Minister meant by those words. The issue is what the Minister actually meant, not what the Minister should objectively be taken to have been communicating. The Minister has not given evidence as to what he meant. The Minister’s meaning is, therefore, a matter of inference from the words he used and the context in which he used those words.

49    I proceed on the basis that the Minister’s reasons for decision must not be read minutely and finely with an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error, or in an unduly critical manner: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272; Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 252 FCR 352 at [45]; BVD17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 29 at [38].

50    The Minister’s statement at [10] takes its context from his indication at [9] that he had chosen to proceed without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and, as a consequence, the applicant had not had the opportunity to advance reasons why an adverse decision should not now be made. The Minister was indicating at [10] that, in lieu of the applicant being given an opportunity to be heard, the Minister would consider the information given by the applicant in relation to the original request for revocation and the AAT proceedings, which the Minister recognised was substantially favourable to the applicant, as it had resulted in the AAT revoking the initial cancellation decision.

51    In the context, I infer that when the Minister said at [10] that he had, “given consideration to information given by [the applicant] in relation to the original request for revocation and the AAT proceedings”, the Minister meant that he had given consideration to information given by the applicant that was relevant to the AAT’s decision.

52    Further, I infer that the Minister meant that he had, “given consideration to the information” given by the applicant in relation to the original request for revocation and the AAT proceedings. In other words, the representation was that the Minister had considered all the relevant information given by the applicant and not merely some of it.

53    It may also be observed that the Minister said he had considered “information” given by the applicant, not “documents” given by the applicant.

54    The Minister submits that his use of the phrase “AAT proceedings” was confined to the AAT’s decision and its reasons, and did not indicate that the Minister had considered all the information that was placed by the applicant before the AAT. However, the Minister’s approach is too narrow. The issue is what the Minister meant by the broader phrase, “information given by [the applicant] in relation to…the AAT proceedings”.

55    The term “proceeding” may be understood to mean the invocation of the jurisdiction of the court by process other than a writ or an application by a suitor to a court in its civil jurisdiction for its intervention or action: LexisNexis Encyclopaedic Australian Legal Dictionary (2nd ed, 2016). Alternatively, the word may mean, “some kind of legal process in a wider sense”, including the formal hearing between the parties: Incollingo v Tax Practitioners Board [2023] FCA 878 at [97] (Bromwich J). In the context, including by the use of the phrase “information…in relation to”, the Minister clearly had the wider meaning in mind.

56    The Minister stated at [10] that he had considered information given by the applicant in relation to, “the AAT proceedings which resulted in the AAT revoking the decision to cancel [the applicant’s] visa”. The Minister there distinguished between the AAT “proceedings” and the AAT’s decision to revoke the decision under review. Therefore, the Minister’s submission that by reference to the AAT’s “proceedings”, he meant only the AAT’s “decision”, cannot be accepted.

57    I consider that the Minister’s reference to, “information given by the applicant in relation to…the AAT proceedings”, was intended to mean all the relevant information contained in documents and oral evidence given or adduced by the applicant before the AAT. However, I accept that the Minister’s phrase encompasses him having considered such information to the extent that it was summarised in the AAT’s reasons. In other words, I do not consider that the Minister meant that he had necessarily given consideration to all the documents themselves or all the information those documents contained, where that information was, or appeared to be, adequately summarised in the AAT’s reasons.

58    The question is whether the Minister’s indication that he had considered all the information given by the applicant in relation to the AAT proceedings, including the information contained in his Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, the letter of support from his sister and the psychologist’s treatment letter, was untrue. In answering that question it is necessary to consider whether those documents were summarised in the AAT’s reasons, the extent to which they were summarised and whether the Minister in fact considered any such summaries.

59    It is apparent from the Minister’s frequent references to the AAT’s reasons (which were attached to the Minister’s reasons) that he read and took into account those reasons. I also accept that if the AAT’s reasons summarise particular information contained in documents placed by the applicant before the AAT, the Minister may be regarded as having considered the summarised information. However, that does not necessarily mean that the Minister considered the whole of the relevant information actually contained in those documents.

60    The applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, the letter of support from the applicant’s sister and the psychologist’s treatment letter are not in evidence in this application. Accordingly, I do not know the full contents of those documents. However, some inferences can be drawn about their contents. One such inference is that where the AAT summarised or dealt with a particular document, the AAT summarised all the information contained in that document that the AAT considered to be relevant. The AAT’s reasons were detailed. It is unlikely that the AAT would refer to relevant information contained in a particular document, while omitting other relevant information contained in the same document.

61    The AAT’s reasons for decision noted at [30]-[31] that the applicant had tendered a report from a psychologist, Ms Sassi. I infer that the “report” is the “psychological treatment letter” relied on by the applicant. Ms Sassi was also called to give oral evidence. The AAT found her report and oral evidence to be unhelpful. The AAT summarised Ms Sassi’s report in the context of criticising some of her conclusions. In particular, the AAT considered there were errors in the application of standardised testing to measure risk and rejected Ms Sassi’s view that the fact the victim may have been pubescent rather than prepubescent was relevant. The AAT recounted that Ms Sassi saw the applicant’s future risk of offending as low, but noted that it “did not find her evidence helpful”.

62    The Minister referred to Ms Sassi’s report in the following terms at [34]:

The AAT discusses two psychologist reports (from Ms Sassi and Mr Stoker) and [the applicant] made submissions to the AAT that he was commencing counselling in relation to alcohol, anxiety and depression. However, having regard to the seriousness of [the applicant’s] offending and his serious conditions, I consider these rehabilitation efforts to be minimal. I consider that the evidence demonstrates that [the applicant’s] paedophilia and alcohol dependency disorders have not been effectively treated.     

63    In respect of Ms Sassi’s report, the Minister gave, “consideration to information given by [the applicant] in relation to…the AAT proceedings”, to the extent the report was summarised in the AAT’s reasons. I infer that the AAT summarised all the relevant aspects of Ms Sassi’s report. That provides support for the Minister’s representation to the effect that he had considered all the relevant information contained in Ms Sassi’s report.

64    The applicant provided a letter from his sister to the AAT. The AAT stated at [27] of its reasons that if the applicant returned to the community, he would live with his sister in a relatively remote regional location in Queensland. The AAT noted that this arrangement would be open-ended and he might continue to live with her indefinitely. The AAT noted at [28] that the applicant’s sister also gave evidence of her plans to move in due course to the Gold Coast. The AAT accepted at [29] that the applicant’s sister, who the AAT considered had presented in her oral evidence as an intelligent and responsible person, would keep a close eye on his behaviour and would provide a stabilising influence for him.

65    The Minister stated at [35] of his reasons that:

[The applicant] has expressed interest in volunteer work and the prospect of moving in with his sister which will be mutually beneficial as they can care for each other. [The applicant] also has the support of his son and daughter-in-law. I accept that these family members would provide an important support network and act as a protective factor against reoffending.

66    The Minister also stated at [61] of his reasons that, “[The applicant] intended to live with his sister…at the time of the AAT hearing”.

67    I infer that the AAT summarised all the relevant information contained in the applicant’s sister’s letter. It is evident that the Minister considered the AAT’s summary of that material. That is consistent with the truth of the Minister’s representation to the effect that he had considered all the relevant information given by the applicant to the AAT, which included information in the applicant’s sister’s letter.

68    The AAT did not specifically refer to the applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, although it noted at [6] that in conducting its review, the AAT “receives written documents and written submissions”. It is most unlikely that the AAT could have failed to consider the applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions. It would not be unusual for the AAT to address the matters raised in the Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions without specifically mentioning that document.

69    In the absence of knowledge of the content of the applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, I am unable to infer that the AAT failed to take all the relevant information contained in that document into account, and that the Minister failed to consider all the information contained in that document by his consideration of the AAT’s reasons.

70    In LJTZ, Charlesworth J observed at [38] that it is illogical in the ordinary sense of the word for an administrative decision-maker to state that consideration has been given to evidentiary material in circumstances where no such consideration has been given. In the present case, I have accepted that the Minister represented that he had considered all relevant information given by the applicant in relation to the AAT proceedings, but I am not satisfied that he failed to do so. The applicant’s contention that the Minister’s decision was affected by illogical reasoning cannot be accepted.

71    The application must be dismissed with costs.

Associate:    

Dated:    2 October 2025