Baroi, Manik & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 991

Baroi, Manik & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 991

The RRT did not breach procedural fairness. Although Mr Baroi had not been given a copy of Mr M's statutory declaration, he was squarely put on notice at the first hearing that the truthfulness of his fresh claims was challenged because of apparent identity between his statutory declaration and claims made by Mr M. He then had notice of a second hearing, at which the RRT identified specific identical passages, offered to go through the similarities, and gave him an opportunity to explain. In those circumstances, providing the other statutory declaration or an adjournment was not required for a fair opportunity to understand and respond to the adverse information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Refusing Protection Visas / Federal Court Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decision
Outcome
The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 24 November 1997 was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'adverse Information' 'adjournment' 'statutory Declarations']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'adverse Information' 'adjournment' 'statutory Declarations']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Application for Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Refusing Protection Visas / Federal Court Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to accord procedural fairness by questioning the first applicant about similarities between his statutory declaration and a statutory declaration in unrelated successful proceedings without providing a copy of the other declaration.' 'Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal was required to specify all similar parts of the other document or adjourn the hearing to allow comparison, comment, or investigation of translation accuracy.' 'Whether any breach of procedures required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was established for the purposes of review.']

Ratio Decidendi

The RRT did not breach procedural fairness. Although Mr Baroi had not been given a copy of Mr M's statutory declaration, he was squarely put on notice at the first hearing that the truthfulness of his fresh claims was challenged because of apparent identity between his statutory declaration and claims made by Mr M. He then had notice of a second hearing, at which the RRT identified specific identical passages, offered to go through the similarities, and gave him an opportunity to explain. In those circumstances, providing the other statutory declaration or an adjournment was not required for a fair opportunity to understand and respond to the adverse information.

Court Disposition

The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 24 November 1997 was affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 24 November 1997 be affirmed.' "The applicants pay the respondent's costs."]