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 name NZYQ 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]

Additional challenges

On 10 May 2024, the High Court decided ASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia. [7] [8] This decision upheld the detention of bisexual Iranian national ASF17, holding that individuals who have the medical capacity to consent to being removed from Australia, but choose not to, are not required to be released, noting that unlike NZYQ, the deportation of ASF17 was "reasonably capable of being achieved". ASF17 arrived in 2013 and his protection visa claim had been rejected. He has been detained continuously since 2014. He has never been charged or convicted with any offense in Australia, unlike most of the NZYQ cohort that were released. Also unlike the NZYQ cohort, ASF17 could have been deported to Iran if he had cooperated with the government by agreeing to meet with Iranian officials to obtain a travel document and consenting to his removal, as Iran does not admit returnees against their will. The government did not dispute he was bisexual and had previously had sex with men, nor that Iran has the death penalty for men who have sex with men. He said that would accept being deported to any country that was not Iran and had repeatedly tried to get the government to do this, even saying "send me to Gaza", referencing the ongoing Israel–Hamas war, and that he faced "certain death" if deported to Iran. [9] Iranian refugee AZC20, who intervened in the case, was released in 2021 by a judge due to his mental health deteriorating from his years spent in immigration detention. He may have been re-detained if he had not intervened in this case, as he also refused to cooperate with his removal. In his case, he had developed psychogenic mutism (mutism without any apparent physical cause) and could only communicate via writing. He had also attempted suicide multiple times, swallowing razor blades and overdosing on drugs. He had lost 25 kg (55 lb) whilst in detention. The judges ruled that, unlike AZC20 and other cases, ASF17 had never contended he did not have the capacity to consent. The Human Rights Law Centre, who represented AZC20, interpreted the judgement to mean "that for people like AZC20, who do not have the ability to consent to removal for medical, mental health or other reasons, a lack of cooperation will not justify indefinite detention". [10] They also interpreted the judgement to mean that "for a person such as ASF17, a fear of harm is insufficient to preclude removal, irrespective of whether that claim might be genuine or well-founded". [11]

On 6 November 2024, the High Court struck down the ankle bracelet and curfew conditions in a lawsuit brought by stateless Eritrean refugee YBFZ. The court said the conditions were "a form of extra-judicial collective punishment", and that for the conditions to be imposed on a person, it did not need to be proven that there was a "reasonably necessary" non-punitive purpose for them. The court said that the curfew was "neither trivial nor transient", persons being confined for one-third of each day, and the conspicuous ankle monitors would suggest to people that the person was "some kind of risk", which could degrade their autonomy. The government did not rule out further legislation in response to this decision. [12] [13] [14]

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Villawood Immigration Detention Centre</span> Immigration Detention Centre in Sydney, Australia

Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, originally Villawood Migrant Hostel or Villawood Migrant Centre, split into a separate section named Westbridge Migrant Hostel from 1968 to 1984, is an Australian immigration detention facility located in the suburb of Villawood in Sydney, Australia.

Immigration detention is the policy of holding individuals suspected of visa violations, illegal entry or unauthorized arrival, as well as those subject to deportation and removal until a decision is made by immigration authorities to grant a visa and release them into the community, or to repatriate them to their country of departure. Mandatory detention refers to the practice of compulsorily detaining or imprisoning people who are considered to be illegal immigrants or unauthorized arrivals into a country. Some countries have set a maximum period of detention, while others permit indefinite detention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Security certificate</span>

In Canada, a security certificate is a legal mechanism by which the Canadian government can detain and deport permanent residents and all other non-citizens living in Canada.

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.

<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.

Administrative detention is arrest and detention of individuals by the state without trial. A number of jurisdictions claim that it is done for security reasons. Many countries claim to use administrative detention as a means to combat terrorism or rebellion, to control illegal immigration, or to otherwise protect the ruling regime.

<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 in Al-Kateb v Godwin. 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>Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth</i>

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration detention in the United States</span>

The United States government holds tens of thousands of immigrants in detention under the control of Customs and Border Protection and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

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.

<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.

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."

<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 were not "aliens" for the purposes of section 51(xix) of the Constitution. As a result, legislation passed under that power is inapplicable to Aboriginal Australians. In this case, this meant that the power to deport non-citizens under the Migration Act 1958 could not be exercised against non-citizen Aboriginal Australians. The case was decided on 11 February 2020.

Mental health consequences of immigration detention include higher rates of depression, anxiety, PTSD, schizophrenia conduct issues, hyperactivity, compared to the general population. These harmful impacts exist regardless of past traumatic experiences, age, or nationality, or even time elapsed. Immigration detention may take place at country or state borders, in certain international jurisdiction zones, on offshore islands, boats, camps, or could even be in the form of house arrest. The use of immigration detention around the world has increased recently, leading to greater concerns about the health and wellbeing of detained migrants. A 2018 scoping review from BMC Psychiatry gathered information showing that immigration detention consistently results in negative impacts on detainees.

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 (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?"
  7. ↑ ASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia , 2024HCA19 ( High Court of Australia 10 May 2024).
  8. ↑ "Judgment summary: ASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia" (PDF). High Court of Australia. 10 May 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
  9. ↑ "'Rather go to Gaza than Iran': High Court hears man fears certain death if deported". SBS News. 17 April 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
  10. ↑ "Indefinite detention continues for people who cannot be forcibly deported". Human Rights Law Centre. 10 May 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
  11. ↑ "Indefinite detention continues for people who cannot be forcibly deported". Human Rights Law Centre. 29 May 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024. Note: this is a different article than above despite sharing the same title.
  12. ↑ Karp, Paul (5 November 2024). "High court quashes Albanese government's ankle bracelet and curfew regime for former immigration detainees". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
  13. ↑ YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, 2024HCA40 ( High Court of Australia 6 November 2024).
  14. ↑ "Judgment summary: YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs" (PDF). High Court of Australia. 6 November 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.