31:
322:
Mr
Williams, issued a joint statement stating that the act of entering into a treaty does not give rise to legitimate expectations in administrative law. The statement replaced a statement made by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and the then Attorney-General in 1995. The statement foreshadowed the introduction of legislation to address the issue. Legislation was introduced in 1997 and again in 1999. It lapsed on both occasions when Parliament was dissolved for the holding of elections.
283:) found that the decision-maker's power had been improperly exercised because it had failed to make appropriate investigations into the hardship to Teoh's wife and her children were Teoh refused resident status. The full court ordered a stay of the deportation order until the decision had been reconsidered in light of the court's finding. The Immigration Minister appealed against the decision to the High Court of Australia.
313:
administrative decisions. Gaudron J held that whilst the decision-maker was not required to initiate inquiries, procedural fairness required them to inform Teoh that his children's best interests were not being taken into account as a primary consideration and offer him the opportunity to persuade them otherwise.
300:
Mason CJ, Deane and Toohey JJ accepted as correct the finding of Carr and Lee JJ that the ratification of an international convention can be a basis for the existence of a legitimate expectation and that, in this instance, there had been a want of procedural fairness. McHugh J dissented on this point
321:
The
Government acted in response to the outcome in Teoh's case by taking up the High Court's statement that a legitimate expectation would not arise where there is either an executive or statutory indication to the contrary. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, and the then Attorney-General,
291:
The majority (Mason CJ, Deane, Toohey and
Gaudron JJ) agreed with the Federal Court decision that there had been a breach of natural justice, as the Immigration department had failed to invite Teoh to make a submission on whether a deportation order should be made, contrary to the Convention on the
233:
spouse of Teoh's deceased brother. Mrs Teoh had four children, one from her first marriage and three from the de facto relationship. Subsequently, Mr and Mrs Teoh had three children together. In
October 1988, Teoh was granted a further temporary entry permit that enabled him to remain in Australia
245:
that his application for resident status had been refused on the ground that he could not meet the good character requirement as he had a criminal record. In
February 1991, Teoh applied for a review of the decision, providing documentation that included a testimonial from Teoh's mother-in-law who
312:
Gaudron J, although in the majority, did not rely upon the
Convention on the Rights of the Child to find in Teoh's favour. The fact that a child is an Australian citizen is enough to establish the principle that the best interests of children should be a primary consideration in the making of
249:
The
Immigration Review Panel rejected the review in July 1991, highlighting the seriousness of Teoh's criminal conviction. This decision was accepted by the Immigration Minister, and in February 1992 an order was made that Teoh be deported. Teoh sought a review of both the acceptance of the
261:
dismissed the application, finding that the acceptance of the Panel's recommendation and the ordering of deportation had not been an improper exercise of power, a denial of natural justice, nor did it involve the consideration of irrelevant factors by the decision-makers.
234:
until
February 1989. Prior to the expiry of the permit, Teoh applied for a grant of resident status. In November 1990, whilst this application was being processed, Mr Teoh was convicted on charges of
189:
The ratification of an international convention can be a basis for the existence of a legitimate expectation and that, in this instance, there was a breach of procedural fairness
277:
213:
on 7 April 1995. The case is notable for giving unprecedented significance to the ratification of international treaties by the executive government (in particular the
292:
Rights of the Child, which provided that in any administrative decision concerning a child, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration.
419:
229:
citizen, came to
Australia in May 1988 and was granted a temporary entry permit. In July 1988, Teoh married Jean Lim, an Australian citizen and the
269:
463:"Minister of State For Immigration And Ethnic Affairs V Ah Hin Teoh: The High Court Decision and the Government's Reaction To It"
480:
214:
485:
331:
423:
406:
382:
254:
133:
120:
490:
358:
73:
362:
210:
41:
92:
86:
166:
402:
398:
266:
150:
129:
378:
116:
354:
69:
462:
8:
273:
158:
474:
258:
154:
30:
443:
162:
246:
stated that Teoh was the only person who could keep the family together.
305:
375:
Teoh v
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs
113:
Teoh v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs
280:
226:
52:
Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh
235:
351:
Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh
200:
Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh
24:
Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh
448:
Control of Government Action: Text, Cases And Commentary
209:) was an Australian court case which was decided by the
420:"The Relationship Between Treaties and Domestic Law"
467:(1995) 2(1) Australian Journal of Human Rights 135.
301:and Gaudron J did not rely upon it in her reasons.
241:In January 1991, Teoh was notified pursuant to the
395:Teoh v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
126:Teoh v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
472:
304:
265:On appeal, the full bench of the Federal Court (
184:(per Mason CJ, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ)
250:recommendation and the decision to deport.
182:There had been a breach of natural justice
29:
295:
450:(Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005).
16:Judgement of the High Court of Australia
220:
473:
215:Convention on the Rights of the Child
417:
460:
191:(per Mason CJ, Deane and Toohey JJ)
13:
368:
14:
502:
454:
316:
411:
388:
344:
1:
481:High Court of Australia cases
337:
332:Australian administrative law
238:importation and possession.
7:
325:
286:
10:
507:
407:Federal Court (Full Court)
134:Federal Court (Full Court)
93:[1994] HCATrans 93
87:[1994] HCATrans 88
405:409 (14 April 1994),
381: (3 September 1993),
253:In September 1993 in the
178:
173:
146:
141:
106:
101:
80:
65:
57:
47:
37:
28:
23:
361:273 (7 April 1995),
399:[1994] FCA 1017
211:High Court of Australia
130:[1994] FCA 1017
72:, (1995) 183
42:High Court of Australia
486:1995 in Australian law
379:[1993] FCA 423
296:Legitimate expectation
117:[1993] FCA 423
95: (25 October 1994)
89: (24 October 1994)
355:[1995] HCA 20
70:[1995] HCA 20
221:Facts and background
203:(commonly known as
308:rights of children
243:Migration Act 1958
426:on 3 October 2009
196:
195:
192:
185:
498:
491:1995 in case law
466:
436:
435:
433:
431:
422:. Archived from
415:
409:
392:
386:
372:
366:
348:
190:
183:
142:Court membership
33:
21:
20:
506:
505:
501:
500:
499:
497:
496:
495:
471:
470:
457:
440:
439:
429:
427:
416:
412:
393:
389:
373:
369:
349:
345:
340:
328:
319:
310:
298:
289:
225:Ah Hin Teoh, a
223:
17:
12:
11:
5:
504:
494:
493:
488:
483:
469:
468:
456:
455:External links
453:
452:
451:
438:
437:
410:
387:
367:
342:
341:
339:
336:
335:
334:
327:
324:
318:
315:
309:
303:
297:
294:
288:
285:
222:
219:
194:
193:
176:
175:
171:
170:
148:
147:Judges sitting
144:
143:
139:
138:
137:
136:
123:
108:
104:
103:
99:
98:
97:
96:
90:
82:
78:
77:
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
503:
492:
489:
487:
484:
482:
479:
478:
476:
464:
459:
458:
449:
445:
442:
441:
425:
421:
418:Jennings, M.
414:
408:
404:
400:
396:
391:
384:
383:Federal Court
380:
376:
371:
364:
360:
357:, (1995) 183
356:
352:
347:
343:
333:
330:
329:
323:
317:Repercussions
314:
307:
302:
293:
284:
282:
279:
275:
271:
268:
263:
260:
256:
255:Federal Court
251:
247:
244:
239:
237:
232:
228:
218:
216:
212:
208:
207:
202:
201:
188:
181:
177:
174:Case opinions
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
149:
145:
140:
135:
131:
127:
124:
122:
121:Federal Court
118:
114:
111:
110:
109:
107:Prior actions
105:
100:
94:
91:
88:
85:
84:
83:
79:
75:
71:
68:
64:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
461:Roberts, S.
447:
444:Robin Creyke
428:. Retrieved
424:the original
413:
394:
390:
374:
370:
365:(Australia).
350:
346:
320:
311:
299:
290:
264:
252:
248:
242:
240:
230:
224:
205:
204:
199:
198:
197:
186:
179:
125:
112:
102:Case history
61:7 April 1995
51:
18:
206:Teoh's case
81:Transcripts
475:Categories
430:25 October
401:, 1994 49
363:High Court
338:References
306:Common law
227:Malaysian
76: 273
66:Citations
446:et al.,
326:See also
287:Decision
259:French J
231:de facto
163:Gaudron
58:Decided
236:heroin
167:McHugh
165:&
159:Toohey
397:
377:
353:
267:Black
187:(3:1)
180:(4:1)
155:Deane
151:Mason
128:
115:
38:Court
432:2009
278:Carr
276:and
153:CJ,
403:FCR
359:CLR
274:Lee
217:).
74:CLR
477::
281:JJ
272:,
270:CJ
257:,
169:JJ
161:,
157:,
132:,
119:,
465:.
434:.
385:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
