NZYQ v Minister for Immigration

Last updated
NZYQ v Minister for Immigration
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameNZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
Decided28 November 2023
Citation [2023] HCA 37
Court membership
Judges sitting Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ
Laws applied
This case overturned a previous ruling
Al-Kateb v Godwin

NZYQ v Minister for Immigration is a 2023 decision of the High Court of Australia. It was the first judgment of the Gageler court. It is an important case in Australian constitutional law.

Contents

The decision is notable for having overturned Al-Kateb v Godwin , in which the Gleeson court held the Migration Act could be applied to authorise the indefinite detention of stateless persons.

The court ruled that when properly interpreted, the Migration Act was beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth insofar as it applied to the plaintiff. This was because under Australia's constitutional system, penal or punitive detention may only occur where criminal guilt is being punished by the judiciary. The plaintiff's detention was presumed to be punitive, and the Commonwealth failed to argue that there was an alternative, non-punitive reason for his detention. [Note 1]

The Commonwealth attempted to argue that the plaintiff's detention was for purpose of his eventual deportation, a non-punitive purpose. However, because there was no real prospect of deportation to another country, the court did not recognise this as an alternative, valid purpose justifying his detention.

The sections of the Migration Act, whilst invalid insofar as they applied to the plaintiff, remained valid when applied to authorise detention in other circumstances where justified by a non-punitive purpose. Judges explicitly noted post sentence detention is a justified purpose when it is for public protection under federal terrorist legislation or other state legislation. [1]

Background

The case concerned a stateless Rohingya man (anonymously referred to as 'NZYQ') born in Myanmar, who had arrived in Australia by boat in 2012. [2] The person was subject to indefinite detention in Australia.

Indefinite detention in Australia was regarded as lawful in Australia under a limited set of circumstances due to the court's prior ruling in Al-Kateb v Godwin . NZYQ sued the Commonwealth and argued that the decision in Al-Kateb should be overturned.

Judgement

The court unanimously overturned the 2004 decision in Al-Kateb v Godwin , a precedent that the Commonwealth sought to rely upon to support legislation enabling the indefinite detention of stateless persons in certain circumstances.

With Al-Kateb overturned, it followed that the legislation enabling the detention was constitutionally invalid as applied to NZYQ. Without supporting legislation, it followed that the Commonwealth did not have a lawful basis to continue detaining NZYQ, and the court demanded his release. [3] [2]

Aftermath

The case resulted in the court effectively requiring the immediate release of 149 men from Australian immigration detention. Almost all of those released had criminal histories, the majority (116) being violent offenders, some being convicted murderers; they were said to be a danger to the community, creating political issues for the Albanese Government. [4] [3] The government responded by legislating a regime imposing strict visa conditions on the group of people released, with mandatory minimum carceral sentences of one year for those breaching the conditions. [5]

These additional measures, such as mandated ankle bracelets, has been criticised by Sanmati Verma of the Human Rights Law Centre, noting that Australian offenders convicted of serious offences are already able to re-enter the community after their sentence. [6]

Notes

  1. Other branches of government under Australia's separation of powers are still able to detain people without involvement of the Judiciary; but this may only occur when justified by some other non-punitive purpose. Some executive examples include; detention for immigration purposes, detention to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, or detention for public prevention after a sentence has concluded, for example under federal terrorist legislation or other state legislation. A legislative example is the ability of the Parliament to detain someone under contempt of Parliament.

Related Research Articles

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kenneth Hayne</span> Australian judge

Kenneth Madison Hayne is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

Section 51(vi) of the Australian Constitution, commonly called the defence power, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate with respect to the defence of Australia and the control of the defence forces. The High Court has adopted a different approach to the interpretation of the defence power, which emphasises the purpose of the legislation, primarily the defence of Australia, rather than the subject matter.

<i>Ruddock v Vadarlis</i> Judgement of the Federal Court of Australia

Ruddock v Vadarlis was an Australian court case decided in the Federal Court of Australia on 18 September 2001. It concerned the actions of the Government of Australia in preventing asylum seekers aboard the Norwegian cargo vessel MV Tampa from entering Australia in late August 2001. The Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, and solicitor Eric Vadarlis, were seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The case is significant because it is one of the few cases to consider the nature and scope of the prerogative power of the executive branch of Government in Australia.

<i>Al-Kateb v Godwin</i> 2004 decision of the High Court of Australia

Al-Kateb v Godwin, was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 6 August 2004 that the indefinite detention of a stateless person was lawful. The case concerned Ahmed Al-Kateb, a Palestinian man born in Kuwait, who moved to Australia in 2000 and applied for a temporary protection visa. The Commonwealth Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. In 2002, Al-Kateb declared that he wished to return to Kuwait or Gaza. However, since no country would accept Al-Kateb, he was declared stateless and detained under the policy of mandatory detention.

<i>Kruger v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

In Kruger v Commonwealth, decided in 1997, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, the High Court of Australia rejected a challenge to the validity of legislation applying in the Northern Territory between 1918 and 1957 which authorised the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The majority of the bench found that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion. The High Court unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

Refugee Advocacy Service of South Australia Inc. (RASSA) is a non-profit Community Legal Centre in South Australia. It was set up in 2002 to represent asylum-seekers in the Federal Court of Australia. From about 2007, it was de-funded and ceased to exist. It has, however, now began functioning again in order to assist asylum-seekers in the community in South Australia whose applications are still being processed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration detention in Australia</span>

The Australian government has a policy and practice of detaining in immigration detention facilities non-citizens not holding a valid visa, suspected of visa violations, illegal entry or unauthorised arrival, and those subject to deportation and removal in immigration detention until a decision is made by the immigration authorities to grant a visa and release them into the community, or to repatriate them to their country of origin/passport. Persons in immigration detention may at any time opt to voluntarily leave Australia for their country of origin, or they may be deported or given a bridging or temporary visa. In 1992, Australia adopted a mandatory detention policy obliging the government to detain all persons entering or being in the country without a valid visa, while their claim to remain in Australia is processed and security and health checks undertaken. Also, at the same time, the law was changed to permit indefinite detention, from the previous limit of 273 days. The policy was instituted by the Keating government in 1992, and was varied by the subsequent Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison and Albanese Governments. The policy is regarded as controversial and has been criticised by a number of organisations. In 2004, the High Court of Australia confirmed the constitutionality of indefinite mandatory detention of non-citizens. However, this interpretation was overturned in a landmark decision, NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, in 2023, with the High Court concluding the practice was unlawful and unconstitutional.

Indefinite detention is the incarceration of an arrested person by a national government or law enforcement agency for an indefinite amount of time without a trial. The Human Rights Watch considers this practice as violating national and international laws, particularly human rights laws, although it remains in legislation in various liberal democracies.

<i>Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i> Judgment of the High Court of Australia

Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation is an Australian court case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 (Cth) which sought to give one-off payments of up to $900 to Australian taxpayers. The decision of the High Court of Australia was announced on 3 April 2009, with its full reasons released on 7 July 2009.

<i>Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth</i>

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, also known as 'S157', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.

<i>Plaintiff M70 v Minister for Immigration</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Plaintiff M70 is a decision by the High Court of Australia. The lawsuit concerned an injunction sought by multiple Afghan asylum seekers against immigration minister Chris Bowen. The injunction was to prevent Bowen from deporting the plaintiffs to Malaysia, pursuant to s198A of the Migration Act. The purpose of the deportation was to avoid their asylum application from being assessed by Australia.

Jurisdictional error is a concept in administrative law, particularly in the UK and Australia. Jurisdiction is the "authority to decide", and a jurisdictional error occurs when the extent of that authority is misconceived. Decisions affected by jurisdictional error can be quashed by judicial review. Examples of jurisdictional errors include asking a wrong question, ignoring relevant material, relying on irrelevant material, and breaching natural justice.

<i>Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, is a decision of the High Court of Australia regarding the detention of asylum seekers in Australia. A 6-1 majority of the Court held that even if the conditions of immigration detention are harsh, such conditions do not render the detention unlawful.

<i>Migration Act 1958</i> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Migration Act 1958(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia that governs immigration to Australia. It set up Australia’s universal visa system (or entry permits). Its long title is "An Act relating to the entry into, and presence in, Australia of aliens, and the departure or deportation from Australia of aliens and certain other persons."

Section 51(xxvii) of the Constitution of Australia grants the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make laws with respect to "immigration and emigration." Historically, it was the principal legislative power in support of Australia's immigration scheme, which is now embodied in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

<i>Love v Commonwealth</i> 2020 case in High Court of Australia

Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth is a High Court of Australia case that held that Aboriginal Australians could not be classified as aliens under section 51(xix) of the Australian Constitution. The case was decided on 11 February 2020.

ASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia is a 2024 decision of the High Court of Australia. It is an important case in Australian constitutional law.

References

  1. NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, [2023 HCA 37], para. 73(High Court of Australia28 November 2023)("For completeness, it should be recorded that there was no issue between the parties that the invalidity of ss 189(1) and 196(1) of the Migration Act in their application to authorise the plaintiff's detention in circumstances found to contravene the applicable constitutional limitation cannot affect the validity of those provisions in their application to authorise detention in other circumstances.").
  2. 1 2 Judgment Summary, NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37. Available here: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2023/hca-37-2023-11-28.pdf
  3. 1 2 "In just 16 minutes, the High Court made a decision that put Albanese in a tight spot". ABC News. 2023-11-09. Retrieved 2023-12-15.
  4. "NZYQ Ruling released 149 detainees, including 7 convicted for murder". 7 News AU. 2024-02-14. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
  5. Twomey, Anne (2023-12-13). "New laws to deal with immigration detainees were rushed, leading to legal risks". The Conversation. Retrieved 2023-12-15.
  6. Karp, Paul; correspondent, Paul Karp Chief political (2023-11-15). "Ankle bracelets, curfews and criminal penalties in Labor response to release of immigration detainees". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2024-08-03. "Every single day, Australian citizens who have been convicted of an offence, even serious offences, re-enter the community after serving their time," she said. "Why does this government think that migrants and refugees in the same position pose a different or greater risk?"