The Federal Court overturned a visa decision due to the “scathing and hostile” criticisms a senior tribunal member levelled at a law firm.
The decision to remove convicted criminal Alovale Junior Leo’o Olo from Australia was scrubbed by Justice Darryl Rangiah due to the unfounded and “hostile” criticisms directed at his lawyers.
“The tribunal’s hostile tirade against the applicant’s lawyers was of the gravest kind, attacking their honesty and integrity as lawyers.”
“In my opinion, a fair-minded reader of the tribunal’s reasons might reasonably apprehend that the tribunal visited its animosity towards the applicant’s lawyers over the preparation and presentation of the case upon the applicant,” Justice Rangiah determined.
In January 2022, New Zealand-born Leo’o Olo was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for an offence of grievous bodily harm.
He had also been convicted in 2019 for grievous bodily harm, in 2020 for possessing dangerous drugs, and in 2022 and 2023 for domestic violence offences and assault occasioning bodily harm.
In August 2024, Administrative Appeals Tribunal senior member Rebecca Bellamy affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to cancel Leo’o Olo’s visa.
In her decision, Bellamy was highly critical of Zarifi Lawyers, going so far as to insinuate they failed to advise Leo’o Olo that his application was futile and acted without integrity by instead taking his money.
Referring to a requirement to explain how she came to her decision, Bellamy said she would “not waste time and tribunal resources” addressing the “disingenuous utterance[s]” on Leo’o Olo’s behalf.
“If that results in an appeal, it would create an opportunity for the Federal Court to provide clarity in this jurisdiction about the extent to which the tribunal is required to engage with material that is obviously lacking in merit, particularly in circumstances where the sheer volume could raise a suspicion that there was an intention to create appeal points,” Bellamy set out in her written reasons.
On appeal, the Minister submitted that Bellamy “merely engaged in robust testing of evidence”, and any frustration or insensitivity that occurred were within the bounds of acceptability.
Justice Rangiah noted with fairness that some aspects of the tribunal’s frustrations were “understandable”, particularly where witness statements contained “obvious exaggerations” and the “florid submissions” made by the firm that was “obviously overblown”.
However, Justice Rangiah said most of Bellamy’s scathing criticisms were “quite unjustified”, such as her claim that the firm took Leo’o Olo’s money when she had no evidence of what advice had been given.
There was also “no basis” for comments that the volume of material could raise a suspicion that there was an intention to create appeal points.
“A fair-minded observer would reasonably regard the tribunal as having launched an unjustified attack on the applicant’s lawyers.
“In my opinion, the tribunal’s hostile comments directed towards the applicant’s lawyers can be taken into account as relevant to the perception of a fair-minded observer,” Justice Rangiah said.
Further, Bellamy’s comment that there was “much less money but a good measure in integrity” in advising litigants to keep their money in the case of a futile application suggested she had made her decision before hearing any oral evidence and submissions.
On appeal, Leo’o Olo also took issue with Bellamy’s “extensive questioning” of the witnesses, which “crossed into cross-examination”.
Bellamy’s questioning of almost all witnesses was found to be more extensive than that of the Minister’s lawyers, and seemed designed to “discredit the witnesses and expose inconsistencies between them”.
Justice Rangiah also noted Bellamy’s cross-examination “was frequently hostile, sarcastic and belittling”.
Justice Rangiah accepted Bellamy’s extensive and often hostile questioning of witnesses might have caused a fair-minded observer to perceive she had “effectively taken on the role of contradictor”.
“I also consider that a fair-minded observer might regard the tribunal’s cross-examination as designed to vindicate the tribunal’s predetermined view that the lawyers had not ‘presented an honest case’ and that the statements were ‘contrived or deficient’,” he said.
The tribunal decision was quashed, and a writ of mandamus was issued to the Administrative Review Tribunal to require it determine Leo’o Olo’s application according to the law.
The case: Leo’o Olo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 10.
