Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 755 is one of those quotable judgments re the AAT, with Perram J stating
[19] I should briefly mention the reasons of the Federal Circuit Court. These were at [59]-[60] and [63]:
Mr Karp’s reference to the evidence of the particular witnesses in paragraph (a) did not identify any material or significant evidence that was not the subject of genuine intellectual consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal expressly referred in paragraph 6 of its reasons to the evidence of witnesses and further referred to the evidence of witnesses in its reasons, as summarised above. There is no basis to find that the Tribunal did not take into account the evidence of the witnesses, notwithstanding Mr Karp’s submissions to the contrary. There was no material or significant evidence identified by the witnesses that the Tribunal was required to further expressly engage with in the circumstances of the findings made by the Tribunal in this case.
The Tribunal does not have to refer to every item of evidence before the Tribunal and is not required to specifically discuss and evaluate every piece of evidence. The Tribunal did refer to the witnesses, and the fifth witness’s evidence was summarised at paragraph 28 of the Tribunal’s reasons. The Tribunal, however, was not bound to accept the witnesses’ opinions. It is apparent that the Tribunal took into account the applicant’s mother’s views as to there being a marriage between the sponsor and the applicant and it also expressly referred to the applicant’s mother’s evidence about having lived with the parties.
... The Tribunal also made express reference to the number of witnesses advanced in the submissions as having indicated there was a genuine relationship. There is no basis to infer that the Tribunal overlooked this submission or the evidence. The Court does not accept that there was any material or significant evidence that required further express consideration by the Tribunal in respect of the persons identified by the particulars to particular (a). The Tribunal reasons as summarised above evidence that the Tribunal had a genuine intellectual engagement with evidence and submissions advanced by the applicant. No jurisdictional error is made out by particular (a).
[20] For the reasons I have given, this is entirely erroneous. It reflects a complete lack of intellectual engagement with the argument which was being put and is indicative of a judicial method in which meaningless phrases are unthinkingly gathered from the authorities like twigs and patched together in some kind of forensic bird’s nest. Judgments like this are a blot on the judicial department of government. The appeal must be allowed with costs. Mr Karp also raised a similar argument in relation to the evidence of Mr Manjinder Singh and a psychologist, Mr Gachon. It is not necessary to deal with these in circumstances where the decision of the Tribunal is to be set aside.
[21] For completeness, it should be noted that the next hearing in the Tribunal will be the fourth time it will have attempted to determine the Appellant’s review application according to law. The first decision, made on 2 July 2015, was set aside by consent when the parties agreed in the Federal Circuit Court that the Tribunal had failed to consider the mandatory matters in reg 1.15A(3) of the Regulations, which include the very same question involved in this appeal: ie the social aspects of the relationship. The second Tribunal decision made on 2 November 2016 was set aside when it came to light that the second Tribunal had extensively plagiarised the first Tribunal’s reasons. The third Tribunal’s decision made on 22 November 2019 will now be set aside because it failed to consider evidence which was favourable to the Appellant under reg 1.15A(3). The Appellant’s initial application for review of the delegate’s decision was filed with the Tribunal as long ago as 12 December 2013 and the Tribunal has now been considering this entirely straightforward matter for nearly 8 long years. It is to be hoped that the Appellant, who is still a relatively young man, lives a long enough life to see the Tribunal deal with his review application according to law. It is by no means too much to expect that the Tribunal takes into account the matters which by law it is required to take into account, that it does not unwisely plagiarise earlier decisions which have been set aside and that it remembers to consider not only the evidence which is unfavourable to the Appellant but also that which is in his favour. Public confidence in the Tribunal resides in its reputation for competence. The conduct of the present review application is apt to undermine that confidence.
