The High Court has ruled that the immigration minister does not need to read all the representations made by applicants in order to intervene on visa decisions.

The case was brought by Joseph McQueen, an American man who had his visa revoked due to drug charges – a decision affirmed by former immigration minister Alex Hawke.

The court found that Hawke had only read summaries of the case provided by the Department of Home Affairs, not any of the submissions or supporting documentation.

The Federal Court overturned Hawke’s decision, ruling that the immigration minister “must personally and directly consider the representations made in support of revocation”.

This decision was confirmed by the full federal court, which called it an “an unusual and somewhat bizarre factual situation”, given that a photograph of the visa documents signed by Hawke on the lap of someone sitting in the driver’s seat of a car had become a central piece of evidence.

But the High Court disagreed with the Federal Court’s reasoning, upholding the government’s appeal and confirming that ministers can rely on briefs that summarise visa decisions and are not required to read all submissions.

The case facts show that Hawke was supplied with 213 pages of documentation on McQueen’s visa revocation appeal. That included a 13-page summary from the Department of Home Affairs and a 15-page draft of reasons supporting a decision not to revoke the cancellation decision, as well as other supporting documents.

Although Hawke “only read the submission and the draft reasons”, the judgment found that this was sufficient to reasonably consider the case.

The government was concerned about the precedent the federal court ruling would have set, placing a considerable burden on immigration ministers to read extensive documentation for every visa decision.