No Evidence Rule

Administrative Law, Trimester 2, 2012 Assignment Question „[The] statutory “no evidence” ground of judicial review is both wider and more specific than was the case with “no evidence” grounds for judicial review at common law.‟ Justice Kirby, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajamanikkam [2002] 210 CLR 222, at [111]. Of the judgments in Rajamanikkam, which do you prefer, and what justification can you provide for your preference? In answering the question, you should read the following three prescribed cases. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajamanikkam (2002) 210 CLR 222 Television Capricornia Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1986) 13 FCR 511 SGFB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2002) FCAFC 422 You may, however, also choose to read the following supplementary reading. The supplementary reading consists of the following three cases. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd v Daniel (1992) 34 FCR 212 Sunchen Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2010) FCA 21 The supplementary reading also consists of the following article. Andrew Pinchin, ‘No Evidence’ and ‘Mistake of Fact’: A Reconsideration (2007) 55 AIAL Forum 59-85 This supplementary reading might assist your understanding, but students will not be penalised for not referring to it, nor rewarded for referring to it. The focus should be on the prescribed reading for the assignment. As this is a reflective and not a research essay, you should not refer to material outside the prescribed and supplementary reading. You should follow the advice below, but also the advice given in the Study Guide on the assignment. Note especially the reference to penalties if the 1500 word limit is exceeded. You should also follow any further advice on the question provided in lecture notes. Some advice on the assignment The question requires students to reflect on primary material, rather than merely