Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Potty Mouth Solicitor Dispatched ... NSW Court of Appeal takes dim view of solicitor who laced his correspondence with disrespectful insults ... Insufficiently professional ... Arrived from Greece with only his underpants ... No contrition ... Anthony Kanaan files ... Read more >>

Politics Media Law Society


The End Of The Affair ... Lord Moloch’s bid for more Fox News fans … The Wall Street Journal rallies the MAGA base …Will the old rogue abandon his journalists? … Is “bawdy” the right word here? … The Deep State plumbs the depths … John and Stanley Roth’s generosity to loving causes ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Suing for defamation - it's such a good idea ...Federal Court of Australia ... Sydney barrister loses bid for extension of time to bring appeal over decision allowing Giles George to intervene to seek an equitable lien over costs ... Falling out between barrister and firm after successful defamation action ... No error or procedural unfairness ... From Stephen Murray at the Gazette of Law & Journalism ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


Review of the operation of the FCFCA ... No suggestion that the courts should be subsumed by the Federal Court of Australia ... Instead, it's largely not understood that the FCFC consists of two separate courts ... "Unfortunate nicknames" ... Consideration of name change urged, along with further review of the federal law jurisdiction ... On it goes ... Report >>

Justinian's Bloggers

Postcard from London ... Summertime - And the living' is easy ... Votes for 16-year olds ... Paralegal's theft by pen ... Spy helping British intelligence from his job at Border Force ... Super-injunction comes out of the shadows ... Feed them strawberries and cream ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"I've stopped six wars in the last - I'm averaging about a war a month. But the last three were very close together. India and Pakistan, and a lot of them. Congo was just and Rwanda was just done, but you probably know I won't go into it very much, because I don't know the final numbers yet. I don't know. Numerous people were killed, and I was dealing with two countries that we get along with very well, very different countries from certain standpoints. They've been fighting for 500 years, intermittently, and we solved that war. You probably saw it just came out over the wire, so we solved it ..."

President Donald Trump at a meeting in Scotland with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer ... July 28, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Home Duties ... The dumping of Attorney General Mark Dreyfus ... Behind the scenes ... Bastardry among the brothers ... Unfinished business ... Family law, privacy ... Considerable policy and legislative results ... Here's Michelle Rowland as AG ... What are her priors? ... Polly Peck reports from the Gallery ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Abolish silks ... Sydney SC writes to the editor calling for abolition of the silk system ... Appointments are anachronistic ... It's not a matter of ability, only notability ... Secret blackballing ... "Corrupt" process ... Confessions from an insider who played the game ... From Justinian's Archive, October 24, 2002 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« A not so dry January | Main | Vale Mon »
Tuesday
Dec192023

Unknotting Al-Kateb

High Court's twists and turns ... What's punitive ... "Reasonable adaptation" ... The cautionary principle ... Legislative inconsistency ... Indefinite detention ... Preventative detention ... New bridging visa conditions ... Further challenges ... Analysis by Ariana Haghighi 

Stake through the heart of Hayne's Al-Kateb

The High Court's recent decision-making has upended the legal landscape for non-citizen detention. It's a reform that has been long called-for by refugee and human rights advocates, who denounced the implications of the High Court's holding in Al-Kateb.

The controversial decision in Al-Kateb, disputed in the recent case NZYQ, was that it is constitutionally valid to allow the indefinite detention of non-citizens. This principle turned on considerations of whether the law authorising the detention had a legitimate intention, which was able to be fulfilled by the mechanism of detention. 

Al-Kateb's legal threshold stood out in a throng of other High Court holdings on detention, attracting significant attention for its inconsistency and perceived unfairness. 

In Lim's case, for example, which related to detention over a defined period of time, the detention needed to displace the presumption of 'punitive' character to be constitutionally legitimate. 

To escape the definition of 'punitive', the government needed to prove the detention was reasonably adapted to its purpose. This test of 'reasonable adaptation' contrasts the 'legitimate intention' examined in Al-Kateb, as it interrogates the law's operation, rather than its making. 

Addressing Al-Kateb's inconsistent threshold for constitutional validity, the NZYQ case tackled the issue of whether a stateless Rohingyan refugee could be indefinitely detained under the Migration Act 1958. 

To argue for an end to continuing detention, the refugee faced the obstacle of the Al-Kateb ruling.

In NZYQ, the High Court considered the 'conservative cautionary principle' warning against the re-opening of findings by the High Court without valid reason. 

With this in mind, the Court opted not to re-open Al-Kateb's statutory construction regarding the Migration Act. Instead, it did re-open the question of constitutional validity on the grounds of legislative inconsistency. 

The principle that detention is not valid if punitive comes from Chapter III of the Constitution, and the exercise of non-judicial power. Though the power to detain is vested in the Executive, the power to adjudge and punish criminal guilt is reserved for the judiciary, in step with the constitutional separation of powers. 

In Re Woolley, McHugh J clarified that detention with both an ordinary punitive and separate non-punitive purpose will be held invalid, abrogated by its punitive features. This ruling, examined in NZYQ, highlights the importance of non-judicial detention remaining non-punitive. 

The Court also considered the distinction between punitive and non-punitive detention in light of the threshold in Lim. 

Expanding on the Lim test of reasonable adaptation to a non-punitive purpose, the Court clarified that this purpose, such as the purpose of detaining a non-citizen to prepare to remove them, must be reasonably capable of being achieved. 

It is on this second limb of the test that the original ruling in Al-Kateb trips, because this was a circumstance where there was no real possibility of removal from Australia. 

This golden key of judicial ratio opens the floodgates for findings that indefinite immigration detention is punitive in nature because there is no possibility of deportation. 

There are many groups of non-citizens who cannot reasonably be removed from Australia, including stateless persons, those owed protection, or non-citizens who are mentally or physically unfit. Since the Court's orders on November 8, 140 non-citizens have been released from detention. 

In the wake of the NZYQ, the government introduced a bridging visa for those released which involves ongoing monitoring and penalties. While the Court could not expressly adjudge this scheme's validity, it will likely depend on whether it achieves a legitimate intention 'in fact', or if it introduces an ancillary punitive impact. 

In order to do so under law, the crime for which the person was convicted must carry a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment. A court must then determine that the individual poses an 'unacceptable risk of committing a violent or sexual offence', and also that there is no less restrictive measure available that could mitigate this risk. 

This two-step test mirrors the reasoning in NZYQ, which adjudges the practicality of detention's preventative or community-protection intention. 

It carries a similar principle that detention should be treated as a last resort due to its proximity to punishment. This amendment also notably invests decision-making capacity in the courts, minimising Executive power in a fraught context of detaining criminals. 

Since the clarity, legislative consistency and alignment with human rights standards proffered by the NZYQ judgment, many immigration lawyers and advocates have expressed relief. 

Yet, there remains ambiguity regarding the reasonable practicality of deportation, such as in cases where the non-citizen refuses to cooperate. 

For this reason, many expect this question to be re-opened, contested and puzzled over in future cases. 

 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Member Account Required
You must have a member account on this website in order to post comments. Log in to your account to enable posting.