The acting president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has overturned a deportation order by a delegate of the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, for the second time, saying independent courts would not be swayed by political pressure.

In a decision on the case of Indian national Jagdeep Singh on Friday, Justice John Logan defended the independence of the AAT, whose decisions have been publicly criticised by the minister for several weeks.

“Any member [of the tribunal] who allowed himself or herself to be persuaded as to an outcome by partisan or political rhetoric by a minister, any other administrator or the popular press would be unworthy of the trust and confidence placed in him or her,” Logan said.

The attacks on the AAT are viewed by many in the legal fraternity as part of a broader assault on judicial officers, and the unfettered operation of the justice system.

Unrelated to the AAT, three other federal government ministers – Alan Tudge, Greg Hunt, and Michael Sukkar – are facing potential contempt of court charges over comments about decisions of Victorian courts in terror cases.

The three ministers have expressed “regret” for their comments, but refused to apologise.

After pleading guilty to a 2015 indecent assault, Singh had his visa cancelled by the immigration department on character grounds. The AAT overturned that decision on psychological grounds, before Singh’s visa was again cancelled at ministerial discretion, and he was taken into immigration detention.

On Friday, Logan set aside the decision of Dutton’s ministerial delegate, granting Singh a bridging visa so that he could organise his departure with his family and leave the country voluntarily. Singh has agreed to leave Australia by the end of July.

But Dutton’s delegate has reportedly intervened again: again cancelling Singh’s visa following Friday’s decision. Singh is understood to be back in immigration detention, but the minister’s department has declined to confirm this.

In making his decision, Logan criticised government interference in the case and said the independence of the tribunal was paramount.

“Mr Singh’s case and the minister’s personal involvement, in recent times, have attracted publicity in the popular press … certain features of the conduct of the minister’s department in relation to this review cannot pass unremarked.”



The judge said his decision would not be swayed by public or political pressure. Independent courts and tribunals acted as “checks on the exercise of arbitrary power” and resisting government pressure “may call at times for singular moral courage and depth of character”.

Judicial members of the AAT are appointed to the tribunal for set periods, but enjoy tenure as judges. Other members are appointed for terms of two, three or five years. Recently, the appointments of more than 50 AAT members were not renewed, in a move that was perceived as an attack on the tribunal over decisions the government did not agree with.

Decisions of the AAT have been openly criticised by Dutton.

The AAT assessed 11,300 visa decisions in the year to April, overturning 39% of decisions by delegates of the minister. He said it was “frustration” he was overruled, and suggested some decisions were politically influenced.

“When you look at some of the judgements that are made, the sentences that are handed down it’s always interested to go back to have a look at the appointments of the particular Labor government of the day.”

“The tribunal will look at these cases and it will come down to the… professional judgement of some people within the AAT and obviously those appointments are made by the government of the day.”

Dutton was speaking about the Singh case and an unrelated AAT decision to grant refugee status to six Iranians which had attracted criticism in News Corp newspapers. Neither the AAT, nor News Corp, has published the full decisions.

A citizenship reform bill before parliament would give the immigration minister unchallengeable powers to overrule AAT decisions on citizenship. The bill would also remove the right for an applicant to appeal to the AAT where the minister has refused them citizenship “in the public interest”.

Dutton has the personal authority to cancel a visa on character grounds which cannot be challenged by the AAT, unlike departmental decisions.

Greg Barns, spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliances and a barrister who has appeared in a number of immigration cases, said Justice Logan’s comments were a welcome defence of the independence of court and tribunals.

“The comments made by Justice Logan should be welcomed by all Australians because the robust independence of the courts and tribunals of this nation is a critical component of democracy. The attacks by media outlets, minister Dutton and other politicians on the AAT and the judiciary generally are deeply concerning.

“Minister Dutton in particular appears to be suggesting the executive arm of government should simply ignore decisions of courts and tribunals where it does not suit his political agenda.”

Emily Howie, director of legal advocacy with the Human Rights Law Centre, said courts and tribunals must be free to make independent decisions free from political interference.

“Neither politicians nor the government are above the law. Yet there is a concerning trend emerging of some politicians going too far and attacking the courts and tribunals that protect us from the abuse of political power. We need to defend the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers as non-negotiable foundation of our democracy.”

• This story was amended on 20 June 2017 to reflect that visa decisions were made by the delegate of the immigration minister, not by the minister personally.