PIC 4020 in the Full Federal Court

On Friday last week (4 April 2014) the Full Federal Court handed down judgment in the first appellate court decision on the meaning of PIC 4020 (bogus documents and misleading information).

The case Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42 was about a bogus IELTS test result that was provided as part of the application. Although you can read the whole case by clicking on the link, in my view the most pertinent paragraphs are the following ones:

32. It is apparent from the terms of PIC 4020 that it addressed the problem of attempts to work a fraud or deception on the assessment of claims for a visa.  That is also evident from the fact that PIC 4020 states a “public interest” criterion, from the narrow and exceptional circumstances necessary to waive its requirements and, more generally, from the serious consequences that follow from its application.  I would not infer any apparent intention to disqualify a visa applicant who could explain an innocent mistake in a document or information provided by them.  PIC 4020 is not directed, in my view, to innocent, unintended or accidental matters.  However, different questions arise when information or documents provided in support of an application are revealed as false, in the purposely untrue sense of that term. 
    ....

49. For the reasons I have already given, it should be accepted that PIC 4020 is directed to information or documents which are purposely untrue.  It seems to me to be clear from the same analysis that the purpose of PIC 4020 was to render visa applicants ultimately responsible for the veracity of the information and documents supplied to support the application.  Although the limited terms of the waiver (and therefore any discretion to excuse non-compliance) make it apparent that innocent errors are not the focus of attention, it is equally clear that PIC 4020 is directed at the overall integrity of the visa system and as a bulwark against deception and fraud from any quarter associated with a visa applicant.  It is not inconsistent with a coherent public policy to make a visa applicant ultimately responsible for purposely untrue material provided with a visa application.  It would be an intolerable burden on the administration of the visa system to require that those assessing visa applications not only discover that information or documents are false in a material particular, but also that the visa applicant who provided them knew them to be so.  In many cases that would be impossible and would defeat the apparent intent of the provision. 
    
    
50. There was no doubt in the present case (and in Vyas) that the IELTS test result form provided by the first appellant contained false information.  It was clearly open to the MRT, on the other facts found by it, to conclude that it was bogus.  It was a counterfeit.  It was not the real thing.