Administrative Law Course - Week 7: Grounds for Review

Introduction

• Focus on the grounds for review in administrative decision-making.
• Error occurs when the decision maker has the power but makes an error.
• Unlike in courts, the rules of evidence do not apply in administrative decisions.

Key Concepts

1. Error of Law: Misunderstanding the Law

   • Decision maker misunderstands the law they should apply.

2. Role of Evidence in Administrative Decisions

   • Rules of evidence (admissibility, hearsay, opinion) are not applicable.
   • Established in Irving vs. Minister for Immigration.
   • Vast majority of evidence often documentary.
   • Natural justice: Evidence relied upon must be shown to affected parties, with some restrictions.

Evidential Grounds for Challenging Decisions

1. Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations

   • Section 5(2)(a), ADJR Act: Decision maker must not consider irrelevant evidence.
   • Section 5(2)(b), ADJR Act: Decision maker must consider all relevant evidence.
   • Relevance: Logically capable of affecting the likelihood that a fact is true or false.
     • E.g., Checking sunset times to validate night driving hours vs. disregarding supervision hours based on discriminatory beliefs.

2. Definition of Relevance

   • Evidence is relevant if it can logically influence the decision maker’s view.
   • Relevant evidence is not necessarily a 'golden bullet' but must influence the decision in some manner.

3. Application of Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations

   • Discrimination: Most forms (gender, age, race, etc.) are usually irrelevant.
   • Context-specific relevance: E.g., disability status is relevant for funding but not for teacher registration.
   • Failure to consider all relevant evidence or considering irrelevant evidence invalidates the decision.
   • Case Law Examples:
     • Our Town FM vs. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: Tribunal considered concentration of media ownership, decision stood.
     • Minister for Aboriginal Affairs vs. Peko Wallsend: Low bar for consideration of evidence; mere consideration suffices.

No Evidence Rule (Section 5(1)(h), ADJR Act)

• Decision invalid if there's no evidence to justify it due to a misunderstanding of the evidence.
• Example: Minister for Immigration vs. Al-Miyahi
  • Tribunal misunderstood the origin of Al-Miyahi, decision would have been invalid if based solely on that.
  • No evidence rule entitles review if key facts are misinterpreted.
  • Practical application: Decision makers often amend decisions when errors are pointed out.

Historical Context: Common Law No Evidence Rule

• Pre-ADJR Act: Common law rule differed, focusing on existence of preconditions for decisions.
• Modern rule under ADJR Act emphasizes actual evidence supporting a decision.

Conclusion

• A decision is reviewable if affected by an error of law.
• Decision makers must consider all relevant material and no irrelevant material.
• Decision is invalid if key facts are unsupported by evidence.

Next Topic

• Examination of decisions invalid due to improper behavior by decision makers.