References: [1998] AATA 618
Links: Austlii
Coram: Mathews J
Austlii (Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Australia) IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP – application for a protection visa – whether applicant excluded from protection under the Refugees Convention by reason of Article 1F(a) – applicant, while a member of the Burmese Navy, participated in events in 1988 which lead to death of protesters – applicant did not kill anyone – whether ‘serious reasons for considering’ that applicant has committed a crime against humanity – meaning of ‘serious reasons for considering’ – discussion of what constitutes a ‘crime against humanity’ – what is meant by requirement that acts be committed ‘against any civilian population’ – must the act have been committed during hostilities – finding that a crime against humanity was committed by others – was the applicant an accomplice – mental element required of an accomplice – defence of obedience to higher orders
Mathews J said: ‘The article provides a direction to decision-makers in words that are clear of meaning and relatively easy of application. To re-state this test in terms of a standard of proof is unnecessary and may in some cases lead to confusion and error.’ and ‘I find it difficult to accept that the requirement that there be ‘serious reasons for considering’ that a crime against humanity has been committed should be pitched so low as to fall, in all cases, below the civil standard of proof. The seriousness of the allegation itself and the extreme consequences which can flow from an alternative finding upon it would, in my view, require a decision-maker to give substantial content to the requirement that there be ‘serious reasons for considering’ (emphasis added) that such a crime has been committed.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Al-Sirri -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 54, [2012] 3 WLR 1263, [2012] WLR(D) 333, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2009/0036, SC Summary, SC, [2013] 1 AC 745, [2013] 1 All ER 1267)
The appellants had been refused refugee status on the ground that they were suspected of having been guilty of terrorist acts. They said that the definition of terrorism applied within the UK was wider than that in the Convention which contained the . .
