Makarov v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCA 1275

Makarov v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCA 1275

On the text of s 34(3)(b) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), the criterion preventing revocation is not the objective fact that revocation would make the person stateless, but that the Minister is satisfied that it would. The question whether the applicant would in fact become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country is therefore not the jurisdictional fact for the Court to determine, and evidence on that objective question is inadmissible. The Court's review is confined to whether the Minister's state of satisfaction was reached according to law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) Challenging Revocation of Australian Citizenship / Separate Question Heard in Advance of Remaining Questions
Outcome
Separate question answered no; costs of the separate question ordered to be costs in the cause; timetable and hearing directions made for remaining questions.
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Fact' 'revocation of Australian Citizenship' 'statelessness' 'ministerial Satisfaction' 'admissibility of Evidence on Judicial Review']
['administrative Law' 'citizenship' 'judicial Review'] ['jurisdictional Fact' 'revocation of Australian Citizenship' 'statelessness' 'ministerial Satisfaction' 'admissibility of Evidence on Judicial Review']

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

Application for Judicial Review Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) Challenging Revocation of Australian Citizenship / Separate Question Heard in Advance of Remaining Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, in deciding if the Minister exceeded power under s 34 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) by revoking the applicant\'s Australian citizenship, the question whether revocation would make the applicant "a person who is not a national or citizen of any country" is a jurisdictional fact so that the Court may receive evidence on the question.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the text of s 34(3)(b) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), the criterion preventing revocation is not the objective fact that revocation would make the person stateless, but that the Minister is satisfied that it would. The question whether the applicant would in fact become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country is therefore not the jurisdictional fact for the Court to determine, and evidence on that objective question is inadmissible. The Court's review is confined to whether the Minister's state of satisfaction was reached according to law.

Court Disposition

Separate question answered no; costs of the separate question ordered to be costs in the cause; timetable and hearing directions made for remaining questions.

Orders

  • ['The separate question be answered "no".' 'Costs of the separate question be costs in the cause.' 'The applicant file and serve any amended originating application by 14 September 2020.' 'The applicant file and serve any additional affidavits by 14 September 2020.' 'The respondents file and serve any affidavits by...