Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Last updated

Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided6 August 2004
Citation(s) [2004] HCA 36, (2004) 219  CLR  486
Transcript(s)
Case history
Prior action(s)
Appealed from Supreme Court (SA)
Case opinions
Harsh conditions of immigration detention do not render the detention unlawful
Case opinions
Majority Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan & Heydon JJ
Dissent Kirby J

Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, [1] is a decision of the High Court of Australia regarding the detention of asylum seekers in Australia. A 6-1 majority of the Court (Justice Michael Kirby dissenting) held that even if the conditions of immigration detention are harsh, such conditions do not render the detention unlawful. [2]

High Court of Australia supreme court

The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the states, and the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.

Michael Kirby (judge) Australian jurist and academic

Michael Donald Kirby is an Australian jurist and academic who is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, serving from 1996 to 2009. He has remained active in retirement; in May 2013 he was appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council to lead an inquiry into human rights abuses in North Korea, which reported in February 2014.

Contents

Background

Facts

Maharani Behrooz, an Iranian national, was being held in the Woomera Detention Centre pending determination of his application for refugee status. In November 2001, Behrooz was one of six men that escaped the detention centre. Following his capture, he was charged with escaping detention along with two of the other men. Their defence at the criminal trial was that conditions at the centre were so harsh that they were punitive, thus making the detention unlawful and the escape lawful. [3]

Prior actions

To support the claim that the detention was harsh and therefore unlawful, the defendants applied for summonses to be issued to obtain a large amount of documentary material that would evidence the conditions at the centre. In January 2002, the Port Augusta Magistrates Court issued summonses to produce documents to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd and Australasian Correctional Services Pty Ltd, the two companies responsible for running the detention centre. [1] :para. 30 The Department and the companies applied to the Magistrates Court for the summonses to be set aside. The Commonwealth Attorney-General intervened in the application and argued that producing all of the material sought was "oppresive", and that the summons was an abuse of process as the documents sought could not help establish a defence to the charge of escape. [4] The magistrate rejected the Attorney-General's argument and refused to set aside the summonses, but narrowed their scope to the period in which at least one of the defendants was detained at the centre. [1] :para. 32

A subpoena duces tecum, or subpoena for production of evidence, is a court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial.

Magistrates Court of South Australia South Australian court

The Magistrates Court of South Australia is South Australia's lowest level court.

Attorney-General for Australia first law officer of the Crown and chief law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia

The Attorney-General for Australia is the First Law Officer of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth of Australia, chief law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia and a minister of the Crown. The Attorney-General is usually a member of the Federal Cabinet, but need not be. Under the Constitution, they are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister, and serve at the Governor-General's pleasure. In practice, the Attorney-General is a party politician and their tenure is determined by political factors. By convention, but not constitutional requirement, the Attorney-General is a lawyer by training.

The Department appealed to the Supreme Court where Gray J upheld the appeal on the grounds that "7. ... The defendants' complaint raises allegations about the conditions of their lawful detention. Those complaints cannot as a matter of law make the detention unlawful. The defendants do not seek relevant material". The summonses were therefore set aside. [5]

Supreme Court of South Australia South Australias superior court

The Supreme Court of South Australia is the superior court of the Australian state of South Australia. The Supreme Court is the highest South Australian court in the Australian court hierarchy. It has unlimited jurisdiction within the state in civil matters, and hears the most serious criminal matters. The Court is composed of a Chief Justice and as many other judges as may be required.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Lander and Besanko JJ, Bleby J dissenting), refused leave to appeal. [6]

Bruce Thomas Lander QC is the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) in South Australia. He was formerly a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia.

By the time the case was heard by the High Court, 2 of the 3 defendants had been deported and charges against the third were dropped. [1]

Judgment

The High Court held, by a 6:1 majority, that even if Mr Behrooz could show that the conditions of his detention were harsh, he had no right to escape from Woomera. The information from the documents may assist Mr Behrooz to seek legal redress for any wrongs against him however that did not assist with the criminal charges pending against him. The summonses lacked a legitimate forensic purpose and were therefore properly set aside by the Supreme Court. [1]

Aftermath

In July 2004, Mr Behrooz was released into a community detention arrangement to minimise the risk of suicide that would arise if he returned to a detention centre. He subsequently pleaded guilty to escaping from immigration detention. The magistrate discharged him without conviction upon Mr Behrooz entering into a good behaviour bond for 2 years in the sum of $100. The Crown appealed against the sentence. Gray J held that the magistrate had erred in the process of sentencing Mr Behrooz, however in re-sentencing Mr Behrooz found that the sentence was appropriate. [7]

In February 2012 Mr Behrooz commenced proceedings in NSW seeking damages for the psychological harm he claims to have suffered as a result of his detention and those proceedings had not been resolved by April 2015. [8]

Related Research Articles

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they comply with the judicial process. Bail is the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required.

Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre immigration detention facility in South Australia

The Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (IRPC) was an Australian immigration detention facility near the village of Woomera in South Australia. It was opened in November 1999 in response to an increase in unauthorised arrivals, which had exceeded the capacity of other detention facilities. It was originally intended to hold 400 people, however at its peak in April 2000 it had nearly 1,500 detainees. After ongoing public pressure in response to several well publicised riots from 2000, accusations of human rights abuses, and capacity issues, the centre closed in April 2003.

Australian immigration detention facilities comprise a number of different facilities throughout Australia. They are currently used to imprison people who are detained under Australia's policy of mandatory immigration detention. Asylum seekers detected in boats in Australian waters have been detained in facilities on the offshore islands of Nauru and Manus Island, previously under the now defunct Pacific Solution and under Operation Sovereign Borders.

Villawood Immigration Detention Centre

Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) is an Australian immigration detention facility located in the suburb of Villawood in Sydney, New South Wales in Australia.

Nauru Regional Processing Centre immigration detention and offshore asylum processing centre located on Nauru

The Nauru Regional Processing Centre is an offshore Australian immigration detention facility, located on the South Pacific island nation of Nauru. The centre is operated by Broadspectrum on behalf of the Department of Home Affairs, a department of the Government of Australia that is responsible for immigration, citizenship and border control. The use of immigration detention facilities is part of a policy of mandatory detention in Australia.

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) was a department of the Government of Australia that was responsible for immigration, citizenship and border control. It has now been subsumed into the Department of Home Affairs, which combines its responsibilities with a number of other portfolios.

Cornelia Rau is a German citizen and Australian permanent resident who was unlawfully detained for a period of ten months in 2004 and 2005 as part of the Australian Government's mandatory detention program.

Immigration detention government facility

Immigration detention is the policy of holding individuals suspected of visa violations, illegal entry or unauthorised arrival, and those subject to deportation and removal in detention 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 is the practice of compulsorily detaining or imprisoning people seeking political asylum, or who are considered to be illegal immigrants or unauthorised arrivals into a country. Some countries have set a maximum period of detention, while others permit indefinite detention.

Undue influence an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person

In jurisprudence, undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. This inequity in power between the parties can vitiate one party's consent as they are unable to freely exercise their independent will.

The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Indigenous Affairs was an Australian government department that existed between November 2001 and January 2006.

<i>Escape from Woomera</i> 2004 video game

Escape from Woomera is an unfinished point-and-click adventure video game, intended to criticise the treatment of mandatorily detained asylum seekers in Australia as well as the Australian government's attempt to impose a media blackout on the detention centres. In the game, the player assumes the role of Mustafa, an Iranian asylum seeker being held at Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre. Mustafa's request for asylum has been denied, and, fearing that he will be killed by the Iranian government upon his repatriation to Iran, he decides to attempt to escape Woomera. Mustafa must explore Woomera and speak with other individuals at the centre to devise and execute an escape plan.

<i>Ruddock v Vadarlis</i>

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.

Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) was a private Australian company that existed from 1991 to 2003 and was owned by Wackenhut, a subsidiary of multinational security giant Group 4 Securicor.

<i>Al-Kateb v Godwin</i>

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.

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.

The Government of Australia 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 departure. 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.

Christmas Island Detention Centre

Christmas Island Immigration Reception and Processing Centre or commonly just Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre, is an Australian immigration detention facility located on Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean. The centre closed in 2018.

Australian League of Immigration Volunteers was an Australian charity. Its main work focused on improving the lives of refugees through volunteering in Australian detention centres. ALIV was the only Australian charity that conducted programs within all immigration detention centres across Australia. ALIV was threatened with deregistration early in 2011, after speculation that it was being run on the principles of Scientology.

<i>Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah</i>

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Yunus Rahmatullah [2012] UKSC 48 is a UK constitutional law case concerning the detention of Yunus Rahmatullah, a Pakistani citizen detained in Iraq, and later Afghanistan, who is alleged to have travelled to Iraq to fight for Al-Qaeda during the Second Iraq War.

The Palmer Inquiry was an inquiry led by former Australian Federal Police commissioner Michael John "Mick" Palmer into the unlawful detention of Cornelia Rau, an Australian citizen, suspected of being an illegal immigrant. The report was issued on 6 July 2005 at the request of and to the Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Amanda Vanstone.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] HCA 36 , (2004) 219 CLR 486 "judgment summary" (PDF). High Court. 6 August 2004.
  2. "Detainees have 'no right to escape'". smh.com.au. 6 August 2004.
  3. Head, M. "High Court Sanctions Indefinite Detention Of Asylum Seekers". (2004) 8(1) University of Western Sydney Law Review 154.
  4. "Does the Australian Constitution allow harsh and inhumane detention?". Research note No 19, 2004-05. Parliamentary Library. 16 November 2004. ISSN   1449-8456.
  5. Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Behrooz [2002] SASC 370 (11 November 2002), Supreme Court (SA).
  6. Beehrooz v Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] SASC 7 , (2003) 84 SASR 479(16 January 2003), Full Court Supreme Court (SA).
  7. Morrison v Behrooz [2005] SASC 142 (15 April 2005), Supreme Court (SA,Australia).
  8. Behrooz v Commonwealth [2015] NSWSC 478 (22 April 2015), Supreme Court (NSW,Australia).