“engaged intellectually with each particular matter” [my emphasis]
in making his rapid-fire decision whether to cancel two visas, in particular having to have read the relevant documents and then intellectually to have thought about the visa holders’ lack of a legal right to be heard, the national interest, the prior court orders setting aside his earlier decision, and the different issues with this one, and more.
And while Mr Dutton did not act “immediately” in releasing the visa holders from detention as ordered by the previous court decision in 2016, that was probably because he was not directed to act forthwith to release them, as these judges clarified for him.
Indeed, to assist Mr Dutton, the judges were kind enough to italicize “forthwith” to make clear, lest he continued to misunderstand,
“that there should not be a repetition of the delay which occurred in implementing the Court’s orders in” the earlier matter.
Thankfully, no intellectual exercise required in reading the Tele. All very clear.
 Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  FCAFC 107
 Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  FCAFC 177