AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Administrative Review Council - Admin Review

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Administrative Review Council - Admin Review >> 2006 >> [2006] AdminRw 11

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Editors --- "Procedural Fairness - 'Dob-In' Letters - Case Note" [2006] AdminRw 11; (2006) 57 Admin Review 79


Procedural fairness—‘dob–in’ letters

In the previous edition of Admin Review it was noted that the Federal Court had held that, even when information was provided in confidence—such as the ‘dob-in’ letter in Applicant Veal of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[1]—and was not taken into account by the Refugee Review Tribunal in making its decision, procedural fairness might require that the substance of the information be disclosed. The decision was appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court and subsequently to the High Court. In Applicant Veal of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[2] the High Court held that the Refugee Review Tribunal was duty bound to afford procedural fairness in relation to a dob-in letter.

The appellant sought review by the Tribunal of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. The dob-in letter, which the Tribunal received before the hearing, brought the appellant’s credibility into question. The Tribunal neither showed the appellant the letter nor gave him an opportunity to respond to the allegations in it. In the reasons for its decision, the Tribunal stated it did not consider the letter when coming to its conclusion to affirm the visa refusal.

In a unanimous decision, the High Court affirmed Brennan J’s principle in Kioa v West, that an opportunity should be given to an appellant to respond to any ‘adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made’.[3] The Court held that a decision maker must determine whether information is ‘credible, relevant and significant’ to the decision before that decision is made. ‘Credible, relevant and significant’ refers to information that ‘cannot be dismissed from further consideration by the decision-maker before making the decision’.[4]

In particular, the Court emphasised:

References to information that is ‘credible, relevant and significant’ are not to be understood as depending upon whatever characterisation of the information the decision-maker may later have chosen to apply to the information when expressing reasons for the decision that has been reached.[5]

Thus, the Refugee Review Tribunal’s statement that it gave no weight to the letter failed to demonstrate that there was no obligation to provide an opportunity to respond to the letter. Nor was the Tribunal relieved from its procedural fairness obligations because it could reach its decision on other bases. The letter’s contents could not ‘be dismissed as a matter of no relevance or of little or no significance to the decision’.[6]

Considering that the letter was given to the Tribunal in confidence and that the Tribunal was not bound by the same procedural fairness requirements as courts (because the Tribunal is part of the executive arm of government), the Court held that neither the letter nor the identity of the informant need be revealed to the appellant. Instead, the Tribunal was required to notify the appellant of the substance of the allegations made in the letter and to ask him to respond to those allegations.


[1] [2003] FCA 437; (2003) 197 ALR 741.

[2] [2005] HCA 72.

[3] [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550, 628–9.

[4] [2005] HCA 72 [17].

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid [20].


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AdminRw/2006/11.html