Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Judge faces court on claims of bias decisions in immigration cases
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 5994
- 3 Comments
Judge faces court on claims of bias decisions in immigration cases
The Federal court has heard that 99.21% of applications on immigration matters were thrown out on the first court date, by federal circuit court judge Alexander ‘Sandy’ Street.
Judge Street is facing a judicial review on claims of ‘apprehended bias’. The court has heard that the judge rejected over 252 appeals of the 254 migration cases he considered over a period of six months. Applicants are presenting these statistics to show that those seeking a judicial review of migration decisions had virtually no chance of succeeding in Judge Street's court.
Barrister Jay Williams has told the chief justice, James Allsop, Justice John Griffiths and Justice Susan Kenny there was “a one in 10 chance before other judges and a 1 in 100 chance before this judge” of having an immigration ruling overturned, according to a report in The Guardian
But Neil Williams SC, appearing for the Australian Government Solicitors, told the court the statistical analysis was flawed. He said, “The so-called statistical evidence is indeed not any such thing. A professional statistician would not draw inferences of this kind.”
Jay Williams responded and said the government could have called a statistician to give evidence, but they had chosen not to.
Judge Street was appointed to the Federal Circuit Court in late December 2014 by Commonwealth Attorney-General George Brandis. The judge hails from the well-known Street legal family, which has produced three NSW chief justices.
The appointment came despite Judge Street being the subject of media attention in the year prior to his appointment when it was revealed he was carrying hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and faced possible bankruptcy.
Judges of the Full Federal Court considering appeals from Judge Street’s decisions have strongly criticised some of his decisions. In one case, the Full Federal Court took a dim view of the judge's approach ruling that he had erred in summarily dismissing proceedings at the first court mention date and where the applicant wished to file further material.
"Serious issues relating to the procedural fairness of proceedings must arise in circumstances such as the present, in which an unrepresented applicant whose primary language is not English ... is called on, without notice, to mount arguments resisting the summary dismissal of his application," judges Mansfield, Tracey and Mortimer said.
"These circumstances, or ones similar to them, should not occur again."
Comments
-
Wednesday, 02 March 2016Courts and Judges alike will be and should be judged by society.
Rightly so- this is a democratic society!! -
Friday, 04 March 2016
Well, actually a professional statistician would draw inferences. If the chacne of success is 1 in 10 and in 252 goes, only 2 succeed - chances of that happening by fluke aloneare about 1 in 5 million . which means - if you have 5 million immigration judges sitting - this one is right at the extreme, for saying no. Right at the extreme. All 4,999,999 others are more lenient. So, yes, something odd is going on here, so very unusual it cannot be fluke. as its 4 am i probably need to check the arithmetic. But i did used to work as a scientist in medical research and statistics was part of my profession. Btw, if a hospital treating patients got results like that there would be a royal commission. Btw for statisticians tge math is straightforward. If the chance of success is 0.1 - and there are 252 trials - what mathematically is the chance of 250 or 251 fails ?
U
Immigration blog
Even in the matter of AAM15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 804 at 15, the Federal Court stated,
"15 The circumstances which generate this situation are quite extreme and are unlikely to recur – it is rare in appellate proceedings for a respondent not to seek to rely upon any part of the trial court’s reasons. In saying that, I am intending no criticism of the Minister’s position which was not of his making and which was a rational response to a challenging situation."