CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The proceeding in the Federal Circuit Court 107 The appellant applied to the Federal Circuit Court for judicial review of the Authority's decision. His amended application contained two grounds, but only the first ground is relevant for present purposes. The first ground was as follows: The decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) was affected by jurisdictional error (excess of jurisdiction / denial of natural justice). Particulars a. The IAA made a decision adverse to the Applicant, without disclosing to him that it had received certain material from the Secretary (including at CB 41-83 and 88-90) as part of the 'review material'. b. The IAA was under the duty to consider the 'review material'. Review of the 'review material' that [had] been provided by the Secretary was the precise extent of the IAA's jurisdiction, duty and power. c. The Secretary's provision of 'review material' in excess of power necessarily vitiated the IAA's decision. d. The material was given to the IAA by a person other than the Applicant could not be dismissed as not relevant, not credible or not significant, and was potentially adverse. e. The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) does not exclude the common law obligation on the IAA of affording an opportunity to rebut, qualify or comment upon material of the kind identified at a. above. f. If, contrary to e. above, the common law obligation there referred is excluded, the IAA's decision is affected by apprehended bias. A fair minded and informed observer might conclude that the IAA might not be impartial or approach the issues with an open mind, when it conducts a review 'on the papers' after having been provided, by a person within the Minister's department, with material considered relevant to whether the Minister's decision will be affirmed. 108 The hearing before the Federal Circuit Court took place on 8 November 2017 and reasons were given on the same day: CNY17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 2731 (the Reasons). The application was dismissed. 109 As recorded in [27] of the Reasons, the appellant's counsel submitted, in relation to ground one, that there were six categories of information that enlivened an obligation upon the Authority to disclose the information to the appellant, because it was said to be highly prejudicial. The primary judge noted, at [28], that the appellant relied on the decision of the Full Court in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v AMA16 (2017) 254 FCR 534 (AMA16). The primary judge then considered each of the six categories of information, referring to them as "particulars". The primary judge reasoned as follows at [30]-[39]: Particular a 30. The first category of information Mr Guo of counsel identifies is the conviction of the applicant. In relation to that category of information, it is clear that the Safe Haven Enterprise visa [application form] asked a question referable to the existence of outstanding charges and that the applicant provided information in his Safe Haven Enterprise visa [application form]. For that reason alone, the decision in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v AMA16 [2017] FCAFC 136 is distinguishable. 31. Further, in the present case it is apparent that the delegate identified the material in respect of the conviction by the applicant of what was at the time of his Safe Haven Enterprise visa [application] identified as a charge. That conviction was potentially relevant to s 5H of the Act. Given the delegate's identification of that material in the delegate's reasons, this is a further basis upon which the decision in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v AMA16 [2017] FCAFC 136 is distinguishable. 32. Further, the nature of the charge and the alleged conviction on the present case are not ones on their face that meet the characterisation of being highly prejudicial for a fair-minded lay observer. The existence of the conviction provided to the Authority under s 473CB of the Act is not conduct by reason of which a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Authority might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the matter on its merits. No jurisdictional error is made out by particular a. Particular b 33. The next category of information said to enliven an allegation of apprehended bias was the provision of information in respect of the movement of the applicant to correctional facilities. The movement information identified by Mr Guo is not conduct by reason of which a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Authority might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the matter on the merits. The movement information in respect of the correctional facilities cannot be identified as highly prejudicial material in the eyes of a fair-minded informed lay observer. No jurisdictional error is made out by particular b. Particular c 34. The third category identified by Mr Guo of counsel, concerned information reflecting the applicant having been potentially involved in a riot. That information is not information that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Authority might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the matter on its merits. The information relating to the possible involvement by the applicant in a riot is not highly prejudicial information. No jurisdictional error is made out by particular c. Particular d 35. The fourth category of information identified by Mr Guo of counsel was information identifying an assessment of the applicant's behaviour whilst in detention. The information referred to by Mr Guo in respect of the applicant's behaviour is not information by reason of which an informed lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Authority might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the matter on the merits. The behaviour information is not highly prejudicial. No jurisdictional error is made out by particular d. Particular e 36. The fifth category of information was the suggestion that the applicant might still be under investigation in respect of other criminal charges. On a fair reading, the communication was concerned with seeking to clarify whether there were any outstanding charges. Those communications cannot be characterised by a fair-minded lay observer as highly prejudicial. Those communications do not give rise on a fair-minded lay observer test, to circumstances in which a reasonably informed fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the matter on its merits. No jurisdictional error is made out by particular e. Particular f 37. The sixth category of information identified by Mr Guo of counsel arose from reference to the National Security Monitoring Section. That entry appears to refer to an interview on 23 March 2015 in the context of a chronological summary relating to the applicant's immigration history. That information is not information by reason of which a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Authority might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the matter on its merits. The reference to the National Security Monitoring Section is not information that a fair-minded lay observer would regard as highly prejudicial. No jurisdictional error is made out by particular f. 38. None of the categories of information identified by Mr Guo of counsel are grounds upon which an informed fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Authority might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the matter on its merits. 39. Mr Guo of counsel also submitted that the information to which he referred to in the six categories was information enlivening an obligation to afford procedural fairness that required disclosure by the Authority to the applicant because of its provisional nature. I do not accept that any of the information identified can be properly characterised as credible, relevant and significant. Accordingly, any failure of the Authority to disclose the existence of the information, singularly or cumulatively did not give to any practical injustice or any jurisdictional error or any breach of the requirements of procedural fairness. Further, I find that there was no failure to disclose in respect of particular a, as this was in substance disclosed by the applicant and in the delegate's reasons. No jurisdictional error as alleged in ground 1 is made out. 110 It is not necessary to refer to the primary judge's reasons in relation to ground two, as this ground is not pursued on appeal.

The appeal to this Court 111 The appellant appeals to this Court from the orders of the primary judge. The grounds in the notice of appeal have been set out at [80] above. 112 In the course of the appeal hearing, an issue emerged as to whether or not the documents at AB 41-89 had been before the delegate at the time of his decision. This issue had not been squarely addressed by either party at the hearing below. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, the Court made the following orders: 1. On or before 4 pm on 4 June 2018, the Minister serve on the appellant any affidavit dealing with the question of whether the documents at 41 to 89 of the appeal book in this proceeding were or were not before the delegate when the decision under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was made. 2. On or before 4 pm on 18 June 2018, the parties are to inform the Court by way of submissions about the course they propose the Court should take. 113 On 18 June 2018, each party filed further submissions. The appellant stated that the Minister had served an affidavit of Alexander Lochland dated 4 June 2018 and attached a copy of the affidavit. In [16] of the appellant's further submissions, the appellant contended that, if the Minister had filed the affidavit of Mr Lochland at the hearing below, and if certain other things had occurred at that hearing, the appellant would have raised certain different arguments. In [17] of the further submissions, the appellant stated that he did not oppose leave being granted to the Minister to rely on the affidavit of Mr Lochland as fresh evidence on the appeal, but that, if leave were granted, the appellant should have leave to make the submissions outlined in [16] of the further submissions. 114 In the Minister's further submissions, the Minister submitted that it appeared that the appellant's position was conditional and that this was inappropriate. The Minister submitted that the appellant should be given a further week to advise the Court whether he did or did not agree to the affidavit of Mr Lochland being filed. 115 On 19 June 2018, the Court indicated to the parties that, given that there was no consensus between the parties as to reception of the affidavit, the Court was inclined to decline leave to the Minister to file the affidavit. It followed, the Court indicated, that the Court did not propose to have regard to the submissions in [16] of the appellant's further submissions. 116 The potential significance of whether or not the documents at AB 41-89 were before the delegate at the time he made his decision arises because Pt 7AA of the Migration Act contains specific rules in relation to "new information". The expression "new information" is defined as meaning documents or information that: (a) were not before the Minister when the Minister made the decision under s 65; and (b) the Authority considers may be relevant (ss 473BB, 473DC(1)). Under s 473DD, the Authority must not consider any new information unless the conditions in that section are satisfied. If the documents were not before the delegate at the time of the decision, they may constitute "new information"; if so, the conditions would need to be satisfied: see Plaintiff M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 353 ALR 600 (Plaintiff M174) at [48]. However, for the reasons set out below, it is not necessary in the present case to reach a concluded view on this matter.

Ground one 117 By this ground, the appellant contends that the Federal Circuit Court erred in failing to find that the presence of prejudicial materials before the Authority gave rise to apprehended bias.

The appellant's submissions 118 The appellant submits that s 473DB(1) of the Migration Act makes clear that the task of the Authority is to "review a fast track reviewable decision referred to it under section 473CA by considering the review material provided to the Authority under section 473CB". The appellant refers to the definition of "review material" in s 473CB(1), and submits that the Migration Act forces the Authority to consider everything that is given to it by the Secretary, even when the material is both objectively irrelevant and at least prima facie prejudicial (noting that it may remain prejudicial, in the absence of disclosure that it had been received and the giving of an opportunity to comment). 119 The appellant submits that, objectively, none of the documents at AB 41-89 could have had any relevance to whether the appellant's claims, as made in his application for a visa (including the information he gave at the interview before the delegate), engaged Australia's protection obligations. Further, the appellant submits that, given the limitations on the Authority's power to remit to the Minister (see reg 4.43 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)), none of the documents could have had any relevance to the Authority's duty (coupled with a power) under s 473CC. 120 Accordingly, the appellant submits, all of the documents at AB 41-89 came within what Deane J in Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41 defined (at 74) as the "fourth category" of disqualification by apprehended bias (his Honour not excluding that there may be more categories, and also noting that the fourth category may often overlap with the third): "disqualification by extraneous information … [which] consists of cases where knowledge of some prejudicial but inadmissible fact or circumstance gives rise to the apprehension of bias". 121 The appellant submits that: nothing in Deane J's formulation of the fourth category suggests the existence of a threshold of "highly" prejudicial; indeed, the imposition of such a requirement would be (and is) inconsistent with the 'double might' nature of the test for apprehended bias; and by finding, in respect of the documents in question, that they failed a requirement of being "highly prejudicial", the primary judge erred.

The Minister's submissions 122 The Minister submits that the primary judge was correct to reject the contention that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Authority might not bring an independent mind to the determination of the review by reason of the referral to it of the various categories of information in the Departmental material, and was correct to distinguish the Full Court's decision in AMA16.

Consideration 123 There is no issue between the parties that the principles of apprehended bias are applicable to the Authority. Section 473DA(1) of the Migration Act provides that Div 3 of Pt 7AA, together with ss 473GA and 473GB, "is taken to be an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to reviews conducted by the Immigration Assessment Authority". In circumstances where the rules of procedural fairness (or natural justice) are conventionally conceived of as having two distinct aspects - the hearing rule and the rule against bias - it is plain that the legislature did not intend to exclude or limit the rule against bias and it continues to apply. This is reinforced by s 473FA(1), which provides that the Authority, in carrying out its functions under the Migration Act, is to pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of limited review that is, among other things, "free of bias". Even if that reference were to be read as referring to actual bias (see AMA16 at [2] per Dowsett J), it remains the case, for the reasons given above, that the legislature did not intend to exclude or limit the rule against bias, including the principles relating to apprehended bias. 124 The principles regarding apprehended bias in connection with decisions of courts and administrative decision-makers are well established. In the contexts of courts, the test for apprehended bias is whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question to be decided: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 at [6] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ; Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 at [11] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ. In Isbester v Knox City Council (2015) 255 CLR 135, in the context of a decision by a local council committee, Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ at [20] stated the test in terms of "whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend a lack of impartiality with respect to the decision to be made". Their Honours stated that this was largely a factual question "albeit one which it is necessary to consider in the legal, statutory and factual contexts in which the decision is made". Their Honours also stated, at [22], that the application of the principle in Ebner to decision-makers other than judges, "must necessarily recognise and accommodate differences between court proceedings and other kinds of decision-making". Their Honours stated at [23]: How the principle respecting apprehension of bias is applied may be said generally to depend upon the nature of the decision and its statutory context, what is involved in making the decision and the identity of the decision-maker. The principle is an aspect of wider principles of natural justice, which have been regarded as having a flexible quality, differing according to the circumstances in which a power is exercised. The hypothetical fair-minded observer assessing possible bias is to be taken to be aware of the nature of the decision and the context in which it was made as well as to have knowledge of the circumstances leading to the decision. (Footnotes omitted.) 125 In Isbester, Gageler J stated (at [57]): The test for the appearance of disqualifying bias in an administrative context has often been stated in terms drawn from the test for apprehended bias in a curial context. The test, as so stated, is whether a hypothetical fair-minded observer with knowledge of the statutory framework and factual context might reasonably apprehend that the administrator might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question to be decided. Such statements of the test have nevertheless been accompanied by acknowledgment that the application of this requirement of procedural fairness "must sometimes recognise and accommodate differences between court proceedings and other kinds of decision making". (Footnotes omitted.) 126 The applicable principles regarding apprehended bias were discussed by Griffiths J in AMA16 at [61]-[66]. I respectfully agree with his Honour's statement of the applicable principles. 127 Part 7AA of the Migration Act was inserted in 2014, to provide for what the simplified outline of the Part in s 473BA describes as "a limited form of review" of a "fast track decision" constituted by a refusal to grant a protection visa to an applicant described as a "fast track applicant". The legislative scheme was described by the High Court in Plaintiff M174 at [6]-[7], [13]-[36] per Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ (Edelman J agreeing), at [80], [85]-[88] per Gordon J. Two features of the statutory scheme are important to note for present purposes. First, under s 473CB(1)(c) (set out above) the Secretary is required to give the Authority "any other material that is in the Secretary's possession or control and is considered by the Secretary (at the time the decision is referred to the Authority) to be relevant to the review". Secondly, under s 473DB(1), subject to the Part (being Pt 7AA), the Authority must review a fast track reviewable decision referred to it under s 473CA "by considering the review material" provided to the Authority under s 473CB. 128 These two features of the legislation were important, if not critical, to the Full Court's decision in AMA16. In that case, the primary judge in the Federal Circuit Court had concluded that apprehended bias arose from the Authority having been provided with extraneous and prejudicial information, referred to in the judgment of Griffiths J as the "Departmental communications". The material sent to the Authority by the Secretary included a Departmental email dated 30 July 2015, which stated that the first respondent had been charged in Melbourne on 17 July 2015 with assaulting a female in indecent circumstances while being aware that the person was not consenting. The email also stated that the charge of indecent assault had a Court date of 11 September 2015 at the Magistrates' Court (see AMA16 at [29]). At first instance, in circumstances where the Departmental communications could not have been relevant to any issue the Authority had to decide, and in the absence of an affidavit from the Secretary, the primary judge had not been prepared to infer that the Secretary had considered the Departmental communications to be relevant to the review. Accordingly, the primary judge had found that the Secretary provided the Departmental communications to the Authority without any statutory warrant (see AMA16 at [36]). 129 On appeal, the Minister relied on two grounds. The first was that the primary judge had denied the Minister procedural fairness in finding that the Departmental communications had not been given to the Authority in accordance with s 473CB(1)(c). This ground of appeal was rejected: AMA16 at [1], [57], [59] and [97]. The second ground of appeal was that the primary judge had erred in holding that the Authority's decision was affected by apprehended bias. This ground was also rejected: AMA16 at [1], [60] and [97]. In rejecting the second ground, the Full Court gave considerable emphasis to the two aspects of the statutory scheme highlighted above, namely that documents (other than those referred to in s 473CB(1)(a) and (b)) were to be provided by the Secretary to the Authority only if the Secretary considered them relevant to the review, and the Authority was obliged to consider the review material that had been provided by the Secretary: see, eg, at [4] per Dowsett J, at [73], [78] and [82] per Griffiths J. Further, it seems that the Full Court's rejection of this ground of appeal did not depend on the primary judge's finding that the Secretary had provided the Departmental communications without statutory authority. This was explicit in the reasons of Charlesworth J at [99]; it is implicit, if not explicit, in the reasons of Griffiths J at [73], [78] and [89]. 130 In concluding that the Minister's second appeal ground should be rejected, Griffiths J referred to the "highly prejudicial" nature of the communications: AMA16 at [75] and [78]. The Full Court also noted that the Authority's reasons for decision were silent on the relevance or irrelevance of the Departmental communications: AMA16 at [73]-[75], [77]-[78]; see also [4]. 131 In my view, for the reasons that follow, the decision of the Authority in the present case was not affected by apprehended bias, and the facts of AMA16 are distinguishable. 132 I accept the appellant's submission that the documents at AB 41-89 were irrelevant to the issues that the Authority had to determine. The Authority was concerned to determine whether or not the appellant was a refugee as defined in s 5H(1) and whether he satisfied the complementary protection criterion. The documents were irrelevant to these issues. 133 It is also the case that the documents were provided by the Secretary to the Authority as documents that were considered, by the Secretary, as relevant to the review (s 473CB(1)(c)). (I do not consider there to be a basis, on the facts of the present case, to suggest that the Secretary did not form the view that the documents were relevant to the review: see further below, in relation to ground three.) Further, the Authority was obliged to consider the documents, which formed part of the "review material" (s 473DB(1)). Indeed, the Authority stated at [2] of its reasons that it had had regard to the material referred by the Secretary under s 473CB. 134 However, much of the information that the appellant contends was prejudicial was before the Authority in any event, in the appellant's application for a visa and in the reasons of the delegate. The most significant matters contained in the documents at AB 41-89 were that the appellant had been convicted on 26 February 2016 of an offence in relation to the March 2015 Incident and that he was facing charges in relation to the November 2015 Incident. These matters were disclosed in the appellant's visa application: see [90]-[91] above. The appellant's conviction was also disclosed in the delegate's reasons: see [97] above. The fact that the appellant had spent time in prison was also disclosed in his application for a visa: see [92] above. 135 While the documents at AB 41-89 contained additional information about the appellant (see [102] above), I do not consider the additional information to provide a sufficient basis to conclude that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend a lack of impartiality with respect to the decision to be made. The information broadly concerned the appellant's conduct while in immigration detention. This was irrelevant to the issues that the Authority had to determine. Although the Authority was required to consider the documents, the fair-minded lay observer would consider it likely that the Authority would put the information aside as irrelevant to its task. Insofar as the documents referred to the appellant having had an interview with "National Security Monitoring Section", I do not consider this, without more, as prejudicial. In these circumstances, notwithstanding that the documents were provided by the Secretary to the Authority as documents considered to be relevant to the review, and that the Authority was required to consider the documents, I do not consider that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend a lack of impartiality with respect to the decision to be made. 136 The facts of the present case are quite different from those in AMA16. In the present case, as discussed above, much of the information that the appellant contends was prejudicial was before the Authority in any event. Further, to the extent that the documents contained additional information, this information did not have the same prejudicial quality as the Departmental communications in AMA16. In AMA16 at [75], Griffiths J stated that, "[h]aving regard to the highly prejudicial nature of the communications, the fair-minded lay observer, acting reasonably, would not dismiss the possibility that the IAA may have been affected by them albeit subconsciously". For the reasons already indicated, I would not draw an inference to like effect in the present case: much of the information was before the Authority in any event; and, to the extent that the documents in question contained additional information, this did not have the same prejudicial quality as in AMA16. 137 As the cases discussed above make clear, it is not necessary for material to be "highly prejudicial" for apprehended bias to arise. To the extent that the primary judge approached the matter in that way, this was incorrect. While it is true that the appellant's counsel had characterised the documents as highly prejudicial (see the Reasons at [27]), he had not suggested that that was the test for apprehended bias. Thus a rejection of this characterisation did not resolve the issue of apprehended bias. However, for the reasons set out above, I consider the primary judge's conclusion in relation to apprehended bias to be correct. 138 For completeness, I note that I do not consider it necessary for a finding to be made, one way or the other, as to whether the documents at AB 41-89 were before the delegate at the time he made the decision to refuse the appellant's application for a visa. The case as propounded by the appellant below did not allege that the documents were not before the delegate at the time of the decision. The factual issue emerged in the course of the hearing of the appeal. It is unnecessary to resolve this factual issue in order to determine the appeal, which is framed by the grounds of review advanced by the appellant below, and the appellant's grounds of appeal. 139 For the above reasons, ground one is rejected.

Ground two 140 By this ground, the appellant contends that the primary judge erred in failing to find that the appellant was denied procedural fairness. The appellant contends, in the particulars to this ground, that the Authority was obliged to disclose the prejudicial material to the appellant and give him the opportunity to rebut, qualify or comment upon it. 141 In the appellant's written submissions, this ground is expressed to be in the alternative to ground one, and to depend on an alternative characterisation of the documents at AB 41-89 as being relevant to the discharge of the Authority's duty under s 473CC. The appellant submits that: if there was no opportunity to comment on prejudicial materials provided ex parte, apprehended bias may arise; although s 473DA(1) ousts the hearing rule of common law procedural fairness, it does not affect the bias rule; and there is an obligation and thus a correlative power of the Authority to invite a person in the position of the appellant to comment on information that has been provided ex parte by the Secretary that is prejudicial, if not to do so would bring about a breach of the bias rule. 142 Although in his written submissions the Minister submitted that the appellant could not raise ground two, as no substantive submissions had been made below in support of this contention, it was indicated at the appeal hearing that the Minister did not press this objection (T2). 143 To the extent that ground two is premised on the documents at AB 41-89 being relevant to the issues that the Authority was required to consider, I reject this premise. As indicated above in connection with ground one, I accept the appellant's primary contention, namely that the documents were not relevant. 144 Further, given that ground two is (necessarily) based on the rule against bias (rather than the hearing rule), it does not appear to add anything to ground one. If the appellant had been successful in relation to ground one, he would not have needed ground two. In circumstances where (as I have concluded) ground one is not made out, the rule against bias does not require the documents to be disclosed. 145 For these reasons, ground two is rejected.

Ground three 146 By ground three, the appellant contends that the primary judge erred in failing to find that the Authority's decision was made in excess of jurisdiction. The excess of jurisdiction is said to have arisen because the Secretary provided material that was not relevant to the Authority's decision. 147 The appellant submits that, in the absence of evidence from the delegate of the Secretary that he considered the documents at AB 41-89 to be relevant to the Authority's review (including an explanation as to how he reached that conclusion), there is no basis to infer that the Secretary considered the materials to be relevant to the review: see AMA16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 317 FLR 141 at [34] (the decision at first instance). The appellant further submits that: the Authority is obliged to consider the entirety of the "review material", even where some parts of that material have been given to it by the Secretary without a lawful basis; and, on the proper construction of the Migration Act, the Authority acted in excess of jurisdiction, by purporting to conduct its review on the "review material" in its entirety, in circumstances where part of that material had been provided by the Secretary in breach of the Migration Act. 148 In his written submissions, the Minister submitted that the appellant advanced no substantive submissions below in relation to this issue, and therefore could not raise the issue on appeal. However, at the hearing of the appeal, it was indicated that the Minister did not press this objection (T2). 149 As noted above, I do not consider there to be a basis, on the facts of the present case, to suggest that the Secretary did not form the view that the documents at AB 41-89 were relevant to the review. Although I have concluded that the documents were not relevant, I nevertheless consider that it was open to the Secretary to form the view that the documents were relevant. The documents contained background or contextual information concerning the appellant's application for a visa and detention in immigration detention. The obligation on the Secretary was to "form a view" as to the relevance of each document: see, in the context of s 418(3) of the Migration Act, WAGP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 151 FCR 413 at [64]. The fact that a different view might now be formed by the Court, with the assistance of detailed legal submissions, as to the relevance of certain material does not mean that the Secretary's decision to give that material to the Authority was invalid. 150 For these reasons, ground three is rejected.

Conclusion 151 It follows that I would dismiss the appeal. There is no apparent reason why costs should not follow the event. Accordingly, I would also order that the appellant pay the Minister's costs of the appeal. It is appropriate for directions to be made to facilitate the payment of costs by way of a lump sum. I certify that the preceding seventy-four (74) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moshinsky.

THAWLEY J: 152 I have had the advantage of reading the draft reasons for judgment of Mortimer J and Moshinsky J. I agree with Moshinsky J that the appeal should be dismissed. I have nothing to add in relation to grounds two and three. These reasons address why I prefer the conclusion of Moshinsky J in relation to ground one. 153 Where apprehended bias is said to arise by reason of the receipt of extraneous and prejudicial information (the "fourth category" in Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41), the relevant principles include: (1) As Moshinsky J observes at [124] to [126], the test in curial proceedings is whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the decision to be made - see also: Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H [2001] HCA 28; 75 ALJR 982 at 990 [27]; Potkonyak v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 173 at [172], per Beazley P (with whom Payne JA agreed). (2) The test is an objective test of possibility, not probability: Ex parte H at [28]; Isbester v Knox City Council (2015) 255 CLR 135 at [59]. However, it must be recognised that there are degrees of possibility. It is not sufficient if a reasonable bystander "has [only] a vague sense of unease or disquiet": MZXLD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1912, per Gordon J, referring to Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2002] FCA 1054; 76 ALD 424 (Weinberg J). (3) As Mortimer J emphasises at [18] and [19], and consistently with Moshinsky J's statement and application of the test, the question which the test requires be answered is one which focusses attention on a point in time before the decision is made. As Beazley P said in Potkonyak at [172]: "The 'double might' test is future looking, about a decision to be made in the future". (4) The principle applies not only to judicial decision-making. It extends to administrative decision-making. The analogy with the curial process is less apposite the further the divergence from the judicial paradigm. The application of the principle must accommodate the difference between court proceedings and other decision-making: Isbester at [22]. The formulation of the test in relation to administrative proceedings held in private was considered in Ex parte H at [28] and [29]. (5) The question the test raises is largely factual. The test assumes a fair-minded lay observer with appropriate knowledge not only of the factual context but also of the legal context, in particular the statutory context within which the administrative decision is to be made. (6) It follows from the two preceding matters that it is necessary to identify how the particular administrative decision-making process under consideration differs from the judicial paradigm in order to apply the test. (7) As Mortimer J observes at [10], the application of the test was described by Gageler J in Isbester at [59] as requiring the following three steps: (a) First, an identification of the factor which it is hypothesised might cause the decision-maker to resolve a question otherwise than as the result of a neutral evaluation of the merits. (b) Secondly, an articulation of how the identified factor might cause that deviation from a neutral evaluation of the merits. (c) Thirdly, a consideration of the reasonableness of the apprehension of that deviation being caused by that factor in that way. 154 The statutory framework in which the question here arises is Part 7AA of the Act. The following is particularly relevant: (1) The Authority is part of the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal: s 473JA(1) of the Act. Its members include the President, the Division head, the Senior Reviewer and other Reviewers: s 473JA(2). Reviewers are engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth): s 473JE(1). They do not require legal qualifications. (2) Section 473FA(1) contains an express exhortation that, in carrying out its functions under the Act, the Authority "is to pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of limited review that is efficient, quick, free of bias and consistent with Division 3 (conduct of review)". See also s 473BA. (3) The Authority "must review a fast track reviewable decision referred to" it: s 473CC(1). Subject to the terms of Part 7AA, the Authority must conduct its review "by considering the review material" and "without accepting or requesting new information" or "interviewing the referred applicant": s 473DB(1). (4) The "review material" which the Secretary "must" provide to the Authority under s 473CB(1) includes: (a) a statement setting out the delegate's findings of fact, referring to the evidence on which those findings were based and giving the delegate's reasons: s 473CB(1)(a); (b) material provided by the "referred applicant" (the appellant) to the delegate before the decision was made: s 473CB(1)(b); and (c) material which the Secretary considers to be relevant to the review: s 473CB(1)(c). 155 The administrative decision-making the subject of this appeal differed from the curial process in a number of ways, including: (1) The decision was made by a specialist tribunal whose decision-makers, being "Reviewers", may or may not have legal qualifications, but who deal with a particular and limited area of migration law in respect of which they might be expected to have developed some expertise. (2) The review was not conducted on the "adversarial" basis upon which curial proceedings are conducted. The particular process contemplated by the statutory scheme does not bear many of the characteristics usually associated with an "inquisitorial" system either. For example, a prohibition (subject to exceptions) on obtaining "new information" is not normally associated with the processes of an inquisitorial tribunal. In any event, attaching a label is not helpful as it only serves to distract attention from the important issue which is precisely how the particular statutory scheme operates and how it differs from the curial process so that the test for apprehended bias can be applied consistently with the principles identified above. (3) The statutory scheme expressly modifies the rules of procedural fairness and denies aspects of the fair hearing rule which would be found in curial proceedings - see: Division 3. (4) There is no entitlement to a hearing and, except in the limited circumstances contemplated by the statutory scheme, the referred applicant is not in fact heard. (5) The review contemplated by the scheme is one of limited merits review, conducted - except in the limited circumstances contemplated by Part 7AA - in substance on the papers (s 473DB(1)), without a duty to get any new information, whether requested to do so or not: s 473DC(2). 156 In terms of the three step analysis referred to by Gageler J in Isbester: (1) First, it is the receipt of irrelevant and prejudicial material which is the factor which it was said might cause the decision-maker to resolve the question otherwise than as a result of a neutral evaluation of the merits. (2) The second step is to analyse how the receipt of that material might cause a deviation from a neutral evaluation of the merits. This might lie, for example, in a contention that the irrelevant and prejudicial material might cause the decision-maker, consciously or subconsciously, to deviate from a neutral evaluation by: (a) taking that irrelevant and prejudicial material into account when the material should have played no role in the decision-making process; or (b) acting in accordance with the views which the irrelevant material might imply have been formed by others. (3) The third step is to analyse the reasonableness of the apprehension of that deviation being caused in that way. 157 As to the second step, Mortimer J at [66] points to the irrelevant material: (1) fixing the appellant with certain adverse characteristics capable of affecting the ultimate question (whether he should be granted a visa and released into the Australian community) and subsidiary questions (whether he should be believed in his claims for protection); and (2) indicating that officials or people in positions of authority considered the appellant to have those undesirable characteristics. 158 As to the third step, her Honour at [66] points to: (1) the official source and quality of the irrelevant material; and (2) the fact that the irrelevant material came to the Authority under s 473CB(1)(c) meaning that the Secretary must have considered the material relevant to the review to be conducted by the Authority. 159 The appellant's case was based on the fact that the Secretary had provided to the Authority, under s 473CB(1)(c), irrelevant material which was prejudicial. The irrelevant and prejudicial material is set out by Moshinsky J at [102] and in further detail by Mortimer J at [30] to [57]. 160 I agree with Moshinsky J that much of the substance of the prejudice in that material was contained in the material referred to the Authority under s 473CB(1)(a) and (b). That is, the statutory scheme necessarily required that the Authority have before it: the statement setting out the delegate's findings of fact, referring to the evidence on which those findings were based and giving the delegate's reasons: s 473CB(1)(a); and material provided by the "referred applicant" (the appellant) to the delegate before the decision was made: s 473CB(1)(b). 161 That material, in particular the delegate's reasons and the appellant's visa application already contained much of the information which the appellant contended was prejudicial and contained in the documents provided to the Authority under s 473CB(1)(c). This fact is important to the required analysis because the analysis must be undertaken recognising that there was necessarily prejudicial material before the decision-maker in any event because of the way the statutory scheme operated. The particular material before the Authority by reason of s 473CB(1)(a) and (b) is referred to below, as is other material that was before the Authority which had been provided by the appellant before the Authority made its decision. 162 The mere existence of irrelevant material provided under s 473CB(1)(c) cannot give rise to an apprehension of bias. There must be some quality to the irrelevant material which might give rise to a reasonable apprehension of the possibility that the decision-maker might not bring an impartial mind to the decision to be made. Administrative decision-makers regularly have irrelevant material placed before them. The ability to ignore irrelevant material is not a skill enjoyed only by lawyers. In my view, a fair-minded observer would not conclude that a "Reviewer", being a part of a specialist division of the Tribunal familiar with the particular and limited legal questions which arise for its consideration, is (as an absolute proposition) unable to disregard irrelevant material. 163 It is sometimes difficult to identify with certainty matters which might influence the making of a decision, consciously or subconsciously. The context here is that the decision-maker is focussed on answering specific questions which arise in a limited merits review. In that process, the decision-maker is required to consider the material before him or her. The decision-maker may consciously consider whether the material is relevant to the issues which need to be answered. Equally, the decision-maker may do so subconsciously or not at all. Whether a reasonable lay observer might apprehend that irrelevant material was such that the decision-maker might not bring an impartial mind to the questions to be answered depends on all the facts and, in this context, particularly on the nature of the prejudicial material, its prominence and the nature and content of the material which was otherwise before the decision-maker. 164 As Mortimer J observes at [30], the appellant's case was that the irrelevant material provided under s 473CB(1)(c) contained: a. extensive pages of internal Department emails and other material referring to the Appellant having been charged for damaging Commonwealth property; b. repeated references to the Appellant having spent time in a prison; c. repeated assertions that the Appellant was involved in a 'riot'; d. assertions that the Appellant had 'a history of aggressive and/or challenging behaviour when engaging with the department', and had been involved in 'many incidents while in detention'; and e. an imputation that he was a national security risk. 165 It was not expressly a part of the appellant's case that the material suggested he had mental health issues (although the irrelevant material did state that) or that he was unreliable as a historian or lacked credibility (which, in my view, the irrelevant material neither stated nor implied). Nor was it part of the appellant's case that the apprehension of bias arose by reason of the material making such suggestions. His case was based on the irrelevant material having the prejudicial quality of suggesting the appellant had been charged for damaging Commonwealth property, had spent time in prison, was involved in a riot, had a history of aggressive and challenging behaviour and was a national security risk. 166 The irrelevant material provided under s 473CB(1)(c) did suggest those matters and also stated that he had mental health issues. In my view, the substance of those matters was also conveyed by the material necessarily before the decision-maker under s 473CB(1)(a) and (b) and, in relation to mental health issues, by further material put to the Authority by the appellant. The material provided under s 473CB(1)(c) in some ways went further than the material which was otherwise before the Authority in any event, but not to an extent that might cause a fair-minded lay observer to think the Reviewer might not bring an impartial mind to the questions to be asked. 167 The material which was before the Authority by reason of s 473CB(1)(a) and (b) in any event included: (1) the delegate's reasons for decision dated 14 March 2017, which referred to the fact that the appellant had been convicted of intentionally destroying or damaging Commonwealth property on 26 February 2016, placed on a 6 month good behaviour bond and required to pay restitution; (2) the appellant's statutory declaration dated 6 February 2017, which contained information which indicated a history of trauma and abuse and implied the likelihood of mental health issues, including: When I told the department that I wanted to return to Iraq I said that out of frustration and anger. I have had a great deal of trauma and abuse, including sexual abuse perpetrated on me. … When I then came to Australia I was locked up again and it brought back all sorts of trauma all over again. I was so sick of being in detention again, so I said I wanted to leave so that I could be free again. (3) the appellant's visa application which referred to: (a) "following the death of my friend Faisal on Christmas Island, I was charged with spitting at a detention officer & breaking a window. The incidents occurred in November 2015 (approx)"; (b) the appellant "awaiting trial on charges of spitting at a guard & breaking a window, following death of Faizal on Christmas Island"; (c) the appellant being in detention or custody from 18 August 2013 in "NWP IDC [North West Point Immigration Detention Centre], Christmas Island, Albany Regional Prison and others"; (d) the appellant "breaking window - in prison and 6 month good behaviour bond started in Feb 2016 approx"; (e) the appellant's previous addresses which included: North West Point IDC, Casuarina Prison (3 or 4 days in June 2016), Albany Regional Prison (from November 2015 until June 2016), Casuarina Prison (1 month in 2015), Perth IDC, Casuarina Prison (10 days in March 2015) and various IDCs in Perth, Darwin, Yongah Hill and Melbourne. 168 In addition, the Authority had before it a submission dated 10 April 2017 from the appellant's representative which referred to the appellant's traumatic experiences and recorded observations of his actions which implied the appellant had mental health issues and recorded that he had been receiving treatment from a psychologist: 4. Trauma recovery I have visited [the appellant] 5 times since his move from Christmas Island to Yongah Hill in November, 2016 (I met him at MIDC in July 2016) and have recently become his primary support person. [The appellant] has started disclosing significant traumatic information in the past two months and I have observed him shaking, crying, rocking, slapping his face, curling up and refusing to look at me when recalling events, very few of which are referenced in his submission or the response to his SHEV application. In relation to at least two disclosures regarding his mother and fiancée, he tells me that he has not felt sufficiently safe or stable to disclose this to anyone outside his immediate family. I am uncertain how much specialist trauma counselling [the appellant] has had access to, but he has said many times that sessions with psychologists 'feel like a police interrogation'. 169 In my view, with one exception, the material before the Authority substantially raised the matters of prejudice identified by the appellant and set out at paragraph [164] above as arising from the irrelevant material. To the extent the irrelevant material went further, it was not such that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the decision to be made. 170 The exception is the reference to the appellant having had an interview on 23 March 2015 with "National Security Monitoring Section". In my view, the mention of this, without explanation or context, is not so prejudicial that it might cause a bystander to think a decision-maker receiving the material might not evaluate the issues neutrally. The reference is isolated, suggesting it was not an ongoing issue. There is no suggestion in the irrelevant material that the result of the interview was negative or that the appellant was in fact considered a national security risk. Indeed, the reference to the interview sits in an itemised chronology of events which includes: the interview with "National Security Monitoring Section" on 23 March 2015 occurred whilst the appellant was in Casuarina Prison (his being in prison in March 2015 was known to the Authority because it was in his visa application); he was transferred to Christmas Island on 28 March 2015; the s 46A bar was lifted on 29 September 2015; on 23 October 2015, s 195A was considered (s 195A allows for the Minister to grant a visa to a person in detention if it is in the public interest, whether or not the person applies for a visa). 171 In my view, the isolated reference to the "National Security Monitoring Section" interview was not sufficiently prejudicial to engage the operation of the "fourth category" of the apprehended bias principle, especially in light of the context in which the reference appears. 172 As noted above, it was not submitted by the appellant that the irrelevant material provided under s 473CB(1)(c) in stating that the appellant had mental health issues gave rise to an apprehended bias issue. The irrelevant material did expressly refer to "mental health issues" and, as Mortimer J observes at [45], does not explain what they were or how they arose. However, the Authority had before it material (referred to at paragraphs [167(2)] and [168] above) which made it clear that the appellant had mental health issues related to past trauma. In my view, the irrelevant material in referring to "mental health issues", when considered in the context of the other material before the Authority, was not of a nature which, either alone or cumulatively with the other matters, engaged the apprehended bias principle. 173 Nor did the appellant submit that: (a) the irrelevant material indicated that he was an unreliable historian or that he could not be believed or was not credible; or (b) an apprehended bias issue arose because the material suggested he was unreliable and not credible. In my view, the irrelevant material did not touch on credibility in any meaningful way. It certainly could not be said to have taken credibility issues further than the material which was before the Authority in any event (which included the delegate's reasons the subject of the review). The irrelevant material provided under s 473CB(1)(c) did not suggest inaccuracies in the history given or say or imply anything about whether the appellant could be believed. In my view, the irrelevant material would not reasonably be perceived for the purpose of the apprehended bias test as possibly affecting the view which might be taken by the decision-maker of the appellant's credibility, reliability as a historian or as a witness; a fortiori, when compared with the other material before the Authority. 174 In reaching my conclusion, I have taken into account that the irrelevant material was provided under s 473CB(1)(c), carrying the implication that the Secretary considered the material to be relevant to the review. In my view, the reasonable lay observer would be taken to know that it was not the Secretary personally who provided the review material. Rather, the lay observer would know that the referral to the Authority was implemented on behalf of the Secretary by persons with relevant authority, as indicated by the material before the Court which showed the manner in which the referral was made. The reasonable lay observer has an understanding of what in fact occurred (the factual context). 175 The reasonable lay observer also understands the statutory context. The referral of the "fast track reviewable decision" to the Authority, and the provision to the Authority of the "review material", are important administrative processes to be taken seriously, particularly in light of the significance of the subject matter. The statutory context includes that the Secretary must refer the matter to the Authority "as soon as reasonably practicable after the decision is made": s 473CA. Also, the Secretary must give the "review material" to the Authority at the time the decision is referred or as soon as reasonably practicable after the referral: s 473CB(2). The statutory scheme relevantly contemplates two decisions of particular materiality to the visa applicant: the delegate's decision and the Authority's limited merits review of that decision. The provision of the material to the Authority by the Secretary under s 473CB is to facilitate the Authority's "review" and is to be provided quickly, consistently with achieving a limited review that is efficient, quick and free of bias: s 473BA. 176 There is a risk in attributing significance to the fact that the material under s 473CB(1)(c) is material which is considered by the Secretary to be relevant without also acknowledging the practicalities of what in fact occurred in the case being considered (the factual context) and the place that s 473CB(1)(c) holds in the statutory scheme (the whole statutory context). As to the latter consideration, the role of the Authority is to review "by considering" the review material: s 473DB(1). Its role is not to assume that what it receives is necessarily relevant (although it would legitimately assume that the person providing it considered it to be relevant) or of some particular or special significance apart from its relevance to the review. 177 A fair-minded lay observer would have these matters in mind when assessing the significance of the fact that irrelevant material had been provided under s 473CB(1)(c). Having regard to my view of the nature of the irrelevant material and to the factual context (including the other material before the Authority), the fact that the irrelevant material in the present case was provided under s 473CB(1)(c) (therefore carrying the implication that the Secretary considered the material relevant) would not cause a fair-minded and informed lay observer to think that the Authority might give particular or undue weight to the irrelevant material or that it might not bring an impartial mind to the matter or that it might deviate from a neutral evaluation of the issues. 178 I agree with the orders proposed by Moshinsky J. I certify that the preceding twenty-seven (27) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Thawley.