Hopkins v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1697

Hopkins v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1697

The facts were relevantly indistinguishable from Steve and Azar, which rejected the same arguments concerning Art 12(4) of the ICCPR, the principle of legality, and the construction of s 501CA. The applicant did not contend those decisions were plainly wrong and identified no good reason not to follow them. Applying comity, the Court followed those decisions and dismissed the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Application in the Federal Court Concerning Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal to Revoke Mandatory Visa Cancellation / Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs payable by the applicant to the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['mandatory Visa Cancellation on Character Grounds' 'revocation of Visa Cancellation' 'jurisdictional Error' 'article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights' 'principle of Legality' 'comity Between Single Judges']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'human Rights'] ['mandatory Visa Cancellation on Character Grounds' 'revocation of Visa Cancellation' 'jurisdictional Error' 'article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights' 'principle of Legality' 'comity Between Single Judges']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application in the Federal Court Concerning Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal to Revoke Mandatory Visa Cancellation / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error because it failed to have regard to Art 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." 'Whether s 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) did not apply to Mr Hopkins because he was not a "person" within the meaning of the section.' 'Whether earlier Federal Court decisions in Steve v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 311 and Azar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1175 should be followed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The facts were relevantly indistinguishable from Steve and Azar, which rejected the same arguments concerning Art 12(4) of the ICCPR, the principle of legality, and the construction of s 501CA. The applicant did not contend those decisions were plainly wrong and identified no good reason not to follow them. Applying comity, the Court followed those decisions and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs payable by the applicant to the first respondent.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs."]