Nov 11, 2010

High Court rules in favour of asylum seekers

A High Court ruling that two Sri Lankan asylum seekers were denied "procedural fairness" under the Migration Act will allow offshore arrivals to challenge their decision in Australian courts, says the instructing solicitor behind the case.

Tom Cowie

Crikey journalist

A High Court ruling that two Sri Lankan asylum seekers were denied “procedural fairness” under the Migration Act will allow offshore arrivals to challenge their decision in Australian courts, says the instructing solicitor behind the case. But a legal expert says that the decision means the two-tier system that differentiates the legal rights of onshore and offshore arrivals will remain in place.

In a unanimous decision handed down by the High Court today, two Tamil asylum-seekers were found to have been denied “procedural fairness” in a review of their rejected applications for refugee status. The bench found that the government had made an “error of law” in not applying the Migration Act and the decisions of Australian courts to the pair.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

70 thoughts on “High Court rules in favour of asylum seekers

  1. Jenny Haines

    At last some small measure of justice for refugees and asylum seekers who arrive by boat, delivered by the High Court. Sad that it did not come as the revoking of Howard’s excision of Christmas Island and the commitment to onshore processing by the decision of the Labor Government. How will they react to this decision? Remains to be seen, but from what I have heard on the radio so far I am not too hopeful. Phillip Ruddock was predictably poisonous in his response, but he is just going to have to live with this decision (that’s the nicest way I can put it Phillip!). Thank god he is not in power to undermine it. No doubt the braying and cursing by the ignorant will start, and I am surprised that my screen says that there are no other postings. To the ignorant – maybe there is more than you ever thought or dreamed of in the rule of law and procedural fairness!!

  2. Bela

    Wow, with this decision, as well as the decision that preventing bikies from associating with each other is unconstitutional (which was also handed down today), it almost feels like Australia still has a progressive heartbeat and that people actually have legal rights.

    If the judges keep this up, we could be forgiven for thinking that John Howard was no longer prime minister. Oh wait…….what’s that…..he’s not? When?

    Next we’ll be having gay marriage, and the Labor party, in government both federally and at state level will have had nothing to do with any of this. They really do have no soul and no purpose whatsoever.

  3. whateverpedia

    [it almost feels like Australia still has a progressive heartbeat and that people actually have legal rights. ]

    Unless Abbott gets his way on voting for judges.

  4. guytaur

    @ Whaterpedia

    That will not happen. That would require a referendum to change the Constitution.
    Another example of Abbot shooting his mouth off.

    On the Hight Court Decision this is fantastic. It may even be the start of the end of those interminable election debates on boat people instead of what our population should be.

  5. Claire O'Connor

    I am grateful that we have a decision that confirms that fairness applies for applicants who are having their cases determined ‘off shore.’ Now we need to protect those in detention, whether that be on Christmas Island or on mainland Australia from cruel treatment, and ensure that those who are processed as refugees are done so quickly with as little risk to their health and welfare as possible.

  6. Jimmy

    Politically I would of thought this actually makes Gillards regional detention centre more attractive (I am not making any moral or ethical judgements just politics) as a regional centre would not be subject to the Australian legal system.

  7. Tamo

    On Remembrance Day the High Court has reminded us.

  8. David

    All praise to the High Court, indeed a day to remember, lest we forget.

  9. davidk

    Good on the high Court but I very much doubt this will end the political football status of this issue.

  10. shepherdmarilyn

    Now to just stop locking people up. There is no point to it and there never has been.

    All decisions made under this law including the non-right of Fatima Erfani’s husband to make a claim, a non-right that killed his wife as surely as if Ruddock had shot her, must be reviewed.

    All the people sent to Nauru after getting to Christmas Island must be allowed to come back here.

    I was terrified the HC would rule against the rule of law like they have twice with mandatory detention without habeas corpus rights, the denial of family reunion that kept families separated for years even if they were all in Australia – lest we ever forget what Ruddock did to the Bakhtiyari family. Keeping them locked up for years even when they were always aware that the dad was in Sydney, then illegally locking the dad up based on demonstrably false papers calling him another name of a person 10 years younger and then forging papers to deport them to the wrong country.

    Under the Migration Act articles 36 and 65 everyone has the right to make a refugee claim, even if they are on Christmas Island.

    For the first time today one of the ABC journos. I have been screaming at telling them it was illegal has responded to my “I told you so”, Fran Kelly conceded I was right.

    When we walk down the facist slope of singling out small groups of people for punishment by ministerial decree we may as well name ourselves the Facist republic of Australia.

    The British High court would never allow the behaviour we have carried on with and even the prisoners at Gitmo have more legal rights than asylum seekers who simply asked for our help.

    It’s kinda like jailing patients because they drove to hospital emergency instead of paying for an ambulance.

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details