The Times Australia
The Times World News

.
The Times Real Estate

.

High Court reasons on immigration ruling pave way for further legislation

  • Written by Daniel Ghezelbash, Associate Professor and Deputy Director, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney

After ruling on November 8 that indefinite immigration detention is unlawful, the High Court today delivered its reasons[1] for the decision that upturned 20 years of precedent. Its ruling has required the release of some 140 people from immigration detention so far, and set off a political scramble to legislate in response to the outcome.

The judgment, the first made by the court under new Chief Justice Stephen Gageler, was unanimous. It largely turned on questions of constitutional law and the limits of executive power.

The court made it clear that a person must be released from detention when there was no real prospect of them being deported in the foreseeable future. Previously, there was no limit to the length of time people could be detained in immigration detention in Australian law. In fact, people could legally be detained for the rest of their lives without ever being found guilty of a crime.

Read more: The High Court has decided indefinite detention is unlawful. What happens now?[2]

The decision overturns the much-criticised 2004 Al-Kateb v Godwin case, where a 4-3 majority ruled that, provided the government maintained an intention to eventually remove a person from Australia, the Constitution allowed them to be detained indefinitely until that removal took place.

The court’s reasons in this case indicated that other laws allowing detention, such as continuing detention orders, could apply to people released because of the decision. Continuing detention orders are a mechanism that enable people to be detained once they have served their sentence for a crime.

However, those orders are only available if the person is considered to pose an “unacceptable[3]” risk of reoffending and only in relation to specific, serious crimes. Such orders can only be made with the support of expert evidence and with judicial oversight, as detailed below.

Implications of the decision

The decision has significant ramifications for the rapidly drafted legislation that was passed by parliament in response to the case, before the High Court had released its reasons.

In response to the release of the reasons for the decision, the federal government indicated[4] it would legislate again before parliament rises for the year.

Laws rushed through parliament earlier this month included curfews, high levels of monitoring of people released from detention and severe mandatory prison sentences for infringements of release conditions. The first package of laws has already been challenged[5] in the courts by a Chinese refugee known as S151, on the basis they are “punitive”. More challenges are anticipated.

With this decision, the court has revealed an intention to exercise much greater scrutiny of the parliament and executive in ensuring constitutional limits on power are respected.

In this way, this judgment can be seen as representing a turn from more permissive approaches to limits on parliamentary legislative power.

The challenge and decision

The challenge was brought by a stateless Rohingya man[6], given the pseudonym NZYQ, who had fled his home country of Myanmar and arrived in Australia by boat in 2012. He spent just over a year in immigration detention on arrival.

Soon after he was released into the community, he was convicted of sexual intercourse with a minor and was sentenced to a maximum of five years imprisonment. While in prison, he applied for refugee status. He was found to be owed protection but, due to his criminal history, was not granted a protection visa. On release from prison, he was immediately re-detained in immigration detention.

Both international and Australian law prohibit sending people back to places where they are at risk of persecution, as NZYQ had been found to be.

The Migration Act[7] requires “unlawful non-citizens” to be held in detention until they are removed from Australia, deported or granted a visa.

NZYQ’s appeal focused on two questions. Did the detention provisions authorise the potential indefinite detention of non-citizens in circumstances where there were no real prospects of removal? If so, was this constitutionally valid?

The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative, in essence agreeing with the majority in Al-Kateb that relevant legislative provisions authorised detention until a detainee was removed, deported or given a visa, no matter how long that might take.

But on the second question, treading a course it said “should not lightly be taken”, the court reopened and overruled the constitutional holding in Al-Kateb, finding that detention provisions contravened the separation of powers in the Constitution. That is, detention is generally punishment, which can only be ordered by courts, not the government.

There are limited exceptions to this rule for immigration detention. Detention will not be punishment as long as it for the purpose of deportation or enabling an application for a visa to be made.

In NZYQ, the High Court stated that ongoing detention – where there is no reasonable prospect of the removal of the plaintiff from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future – would not meet this test.

What does it mean?

With this judgment, the court unanimously rejected the ability of the parliament to define its own limits for detention. In doing so, it brings Australia into line with international law and practice. No other country allows for, let alone requires, indefinite mandatory immigration detention.

While the court did not engage directly with international law arguments, the outcome and reasoning reaffirm international principles of reasonableness and proportionality, set out in a memo[8] by international refugee law expert Professor Guy S Goodwin-Gill. This formed the basis of Kaldor Centre’s intervention[9] with the Human Rights Law Centre in the case.

In terms of when an individual will be required to be released from detention, the court makes clear that the onus is on the government to show there is real prospect of removal in the reasonable future. This means deportation has to be a real possibility – it is not enough for the government to say it is trying without showing there is a real prospect it can be achieved.

This decision also will have broader ramifications for habeas corpus in Australian courts. This is the requirement that any person detained by the government has the right to challenge that detention. When challenged, the government must demonstrate the basis for the detention. With this judgment, the court has made it clear that inquiries will be rigorous, not merely considering the surface arguments made by detaining authorities.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: A government in a big hurry gives opposition some wins on ex-detainees[10]

Preventive detention

The court acknowledged that people released from immigration detention because of its decision could be re-detained under other laws, such as continuing detention provisions. These allow for the ongoing detention of people who are considered to pose an unacceptable risk of reoffending. This would need to be for reasons exclusively connected to the risk that is posed, not to their immigration status.

Such provisions already exist for some sex or terrorism crimes. However, for such orders to be made, there must be clear evidence the individual poses an unacceptable risk; merely having committed a crime before is not adequate. Most importantly, these decisions are generally made by the courts, and not the government.

The High Court’s decision was clear – only the courts have the power to deal out punishment. The risk is that any further blanket restrictions on individual liberty that are not subject to judicial oversight will be similarly overturned by the courts.

References

  1. ^ reasons (eresources.hcourt.gov.au)
  2. ^ The High Court has decided indefinite detention is unlawful. What happens now? (theconversation.com)
  3. ^ unacceptable (www.legislation.gov.au)
  4. ^ indicated (www.theage.com.au)
  5. ^ already been challenged (www.theguardian.com)
  6. ^ stateless Rohingya man (theconversation.com)
  7. ^ Migration Act (www5.austlii.edu.au)
  8. ^ memo (www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au)
  9. ^ intervention (www.hcourt.gov.au)
  10. ^ Grattan on Friday: A government in a big hurry gives opposition some wins on ex-detainees (theconversation.com)

Read more https://theconversation.com/high-court-reasons-on-immigration-ruling-pave-way-for-further-legislation-218699

The Times Features

Best Deals on Home Furniture Online

Key Highlights Discover the best deals on high-quality outdoor furniture online. Transform your outdoor space into a stylish and comfortable oasis. Explore a wide range of d...

Discover the Best Women's Jumpers for Every Season

Key Highlights Explore lightweight jumpers for spring and summer, ensuring breathability and ease. Wrap up warm with cozy wool jumpers for the chilly autumn and winter season...

Uncover the Elegance of Gorgeous Diamond Tennis Necklaces

Key Highlights Diamond tennis necklaces are a timeless piece of jewelry that exudes elegance and sophistication. They feature a continuous line of brilliant-cut diamonds, cre...

Dental Implants vs. Dentures: Which Is Better for You?

When it comes to replacing missing teeth, two of the most common options are dental implants and dentures. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, so choosing between them ...

What Neck Pain Really Means (And Why It’s More Than Just Poor Posture)

Neck pain is often brushed off as something temporary — a tight spot after a long day at the desk or a poor night’s sleep. But when the discomfort keeps returning, it could be a ...

The Work of Gosha Rubchinskiy: Fashion, Culture, and Youth

From Designer to Cultural Architect Gosha Rubchinskiy is not just a fashion designer—he's a cultural force. Born in Moscow in 1984, Rubchinskiy began his career in fashion in t...

Times Magazine

The Essential Guide to Transforming Office Spaces for Maximum Efficiency

Why Office Fitouts MatterA well-designed office can make all the difference in productivity, employee satisfaction, and client impressions. Businesses of all sizes are investing in updated office spaces to create environments that foster collaborat...

The A/B Testing Revolution: How AI Optimized Landing Pages Without Human Input

A/B testing was always integral to the web-based marketing world. Was there a button that converted better? Marketing could pit one against the other and see which option worked better. This was always through human observation, and over time, as d...

Using Countdown Timers in Email: Do They Really Increase Conversions?

In a world that's always on, where marketers are attempting to entice a subscriber and get them to convert on the same screen with one email, the power of urgency is sometimes the essential element needed. One of the most popular ways to create urg...

Types of Software Consultants

In today's technology-driven world, businesses often seek the expertise of software consultants to navigate complex software needs. There are several types of software consultants, including solution architects, project managers, and user experienc...

CWU Assistive Tech Hub is Changing Lives: Win a Free Rollator Walker This Easter!

🌟 Mobility. Independence. Community. All in One. This Easter, the CWU Assistive Tech Hub is pleased to support the Banyule community by giving away a rollator walker. The giveaway will take place during the Macleod Village Easter Egg Hunt & Ma...

"Eternal Nurture" by Cara Barilla: A Timeless Collection of Wisdom and Healing

Renowned Sydney-born author and educator Cara Barilla has released her latest book, Eternal Nurture, a profound collection of inspirational quotes designed to support mindfulness, emotional healing, and personal growth. With a deep commitment to ...

LayBy Shopping