intended to use as part of his social media activities. I accept Mr Goddard's characterisation of the applicant's behaviour during the impugned marriage ceremony namely that the applicant was acting the part of the bride in an endeavour to make credible the respondent's social media work.
108 Whether or not the applicant's belief about the nature of the wedding ceremony was founded on reasonable grounds is irrelevant. The subjective state of mind of the applicant is key. Here, I am persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the applicant was mistaken about the nature of the ceremony performed. She believed she was acting. She called the event "a prank". It made perfect sense for her to adopt the persona of a bride in all things at the impugned ceremony so as to enhance the credibility of the video depicting a legally valid marriage. She had not met the celebrant prior to the date of the alleged ceremony, she had not signed the notice of intended marriage, she did not wear a bridal gown and instead she wore a plain white dress. No member of her family was present. And the alleged ceremony took place in less than two days after the applicant accepted the respondent's proposal of marriage. That is not to say that people sometimes marry in accelerated circumstances. But no evidence was led to the effect that the applicant was driven to marrying in accelerated circumstances.
109 The essence of the applicant's case is that she believed she was participating in some form of enactment of a ceremony of marriage in which she played the bride, akin to an actress playing a role in front of a camera. To my mind, there is no fault in reasoning or in the logic of her contentions in that regard. She believed that the respondent was a social media influencer who had asked for her help to promote his social media work. She was told to bring a white dress while travelling in Sydney, which she did. She was not told to obtain a bridal gown. She did not have her family members present to witness the event on the date of the alleged ceremony. All those factors demonstrated to me that the applicant did not provide real consent to her participation in the impugned ceremony of marriage in late December 2023.
110 Some endeavour was made to suggest that the respondent was marrying the applicant with a view to improving his migration status. He denied any such suggestion. In any event while the applicant faintly adduced evidence on point the issue was not seriously pursued. I am unwilling to make any findings on point. It is sufficient to rest my decision on the wording of s 23B(1)(d)(ii) of the Marriage Act, which I do.
