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

Balkan intrigues ... Old coppers stagger into the Croatian Six inquiry ... 15-year jail terms in 1980 for alleged terrorism ... Miscarriage of justice under review ... Verballing ... Loading-up ... Old fashioned detective "work" ... Evidence so far ... Hamish McDonald reports ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


Splitting heirs ... How to get rid of the Royals – a Republican tours Orstraya … Underneath their robes – sexual harassment on the bench … Credit card fees – so tricky that only economists know what to do … Muted response to Drumgold vindication … Vale Percy Allan ... Read on ... 

The Financial Times examines criminal trial delays in England & Wales ... About 70,000 cases on waiting lists at Crown Courts ... More >>

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Blue sky litigation ... Another costly Lehrmann decision ... One more spin on the never-never ... Arguable appeal discovered in the bowels of the Gazette of Law & Journalism ... Odious litigants ... Could Lee J have got it wrong on the meaning of rape? ... Calpurnia reports from the Defamatorium ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian's Bloggers

Online incitements ... Riots in English cities fed by online misinformation about refugees ... Policing and prosecution policies ... Fast and furious processing of offenders ... Online Safety Act grapples with new challenges ... Increased policing of speech on tech platforms ... Hugh Vuillier reports from London ... Read more >> 

"Mistakes of law or fact are a professional inevitability for judges, tribunal members and administrative decision makers."  

Paul Brereton, Commissioner of the National Corruption Concealment Commission, downplaying the Inspector's finding of bias and procedural unfairness with his conflicted involvement in the decision making about Robodebt referrals ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Vale Percy Allan AM ... Obit for friend and fellow-traveller ... Prolific writer on economics and politics ... Public finance guru ... Technocrat with humanity and broad interests ... Theatre ... Animals ... Art ... Read more ... 


Justinian's archive

A triumph for Victorian morality ... Ashton v Pratt ... In the sack with Dick Pratt ... Meretricious sexual services renders contract void on public policy grounds ... Justice Paul Brereton applies curious moral standard ... A whiff of hypocrisy ... Doubtful finding ... Artemus Jones reporting ... From Justinian's Archive, January 24, 2012 ... Who knew the NACC commissioner had strong views on the sanctity of marriage ... 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.