The Federal Court of Australia (the Court) has upheld a subpoena to produce documents issued against three civil society organisations. These organisations are now required to produce internal documents and are at risk of having to pay a large corporation’s costs in association with proceedings that they were not a party to.
Read MoreMark Panazzolo (the employee), a diesel mechanic, was successful in his claim against his former employer, Don’s Mechanical and Diesel Service Pty Ltd (Don’s Auto/the employer), for disability-based discrimination.
Read MoreOn 23 August, the Federal Court found that ‘Giggle for Girls’ had indirectly discriminated against a transgender woman by excluding her from an app which was designed as a ‘women-only safe space.’ This is the first court decision that determined that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) protects transgender women from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity.
Read MoreOn 8 February 2023, the Victorian Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from Cotterill v Romanes [2013] VSC 498.
The Court of Appeal held that directions made in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic under the emergency powers in the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) (PHW Act) did not impermissibly burden the freedom of political communication implied in the Commonwealth Constitution.
Justice Mossop of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has found that an accused person, Alexander (a pseudonym), was imprisoned in contravention of section 19 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) in circumstances where they were on remand and imprisoned with people who had been convicted. Alexander’s right to be separated from convicted prisoners was not restricted by the operation of section 44 of the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) (CMA). Accordingly, his Honour found that the requirements for “special or exceptional circumstances” favouring a grant of bail under section 9D of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) (Bail Act) were satisfied.
Read MoreThe Victorian Supreme Court upheld the defendants' application for summary dismissal but granted leave for the plaintiff to reformulate his claim, in a representative proceeding (class action) challenging the validity of the decision to demolish three public housing towers in Melbourne. Justice Richards held the plaintiff's claim had no real prospect of success because the claim did not identify a decision that the plaintiff had standing to seek judicial review remedies for. The lack of justiciability of the decision was fatal to both the jurisdictional error ground and the Charter grounds in this matter.
Read MoreOn 30 November 2023, the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that the plaintiff, BZN, had not proven that the final review decision, which affirmed the findings of an investigation into his alleged sexual assault of a child, was: legally invalid; or unlawful under section 59 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('HRA').
The judgment offers insights into how the HRA applies to public authorities and the standards they must meet in making decisions that adequately consider human rights.
Kamaljit Kaur Athwal successfully brought an action against the State of Queensland seeking a declaration that the restriction on possessing a knife for religious reasons inside a school was inconsistent with the federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (‘RDA’).
Read MoreCurtin AJ of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Supreme Court has refused to grant an extension of time to bring claims for compensation or damages under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) to persons who allege their human rights were infringed by a public authority, being the Australian Capital Territory (Territory), because of the finding that the claims were futile. The case contains helpful discussion of the operation of the HRA.
Read MoreOn 10 May 2024, the High Court handed down its judgment in the case of ASF17. The decision followed the High Court’s ruling in NZYQ in November 2023, in which the Court held it was unlawful for the Australian Government to continue detaining a person in immigration detention where there was no real prospect of the person’s removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.
That case was brought by a plaintiff who was both stateless and engaged Australia’s international protection obligations. In ASF17, the Court considered whether the same limitation on detention applied to a person who did not have a formal protection finding, but could not be removed because his country of origin refuses to accept the forced return of its citizens and he had not consented to return.
Read MoreWhere a person’s visa is mandatorily cancelled on character grounds under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act), s 501CA provides a procedure for the Minister to invite the former visa holder to make representations if they consider the cancellation decision should be revoked.
Read MoreXAD, a child classified as an “unauthorised maritime arrival” for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), sought (by her litigation guardian XAE) an order to compel either the Minister for Immigration[1] or the Minister for Home Affairs to consider her application for a protection visa.
Read MoreThe High Court of Australia found that section 494AB(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), a provision which seeks to prevent legal proceedings being taken against the Commonwealth in relation to asylum seekers under the regional processing regime, does not limit the jurisdiction of any court.
Read MoreIn August, the Federal Court ordered the Minister for Home Affairs to urgently remove an elderly man with multiple health conditions from a Melbourne immigration detention centre to guard against the serious risk of COVID-19 infection.
The man was 68 years old and suffered from health issues including type-2 diabetes and high cholesterol, which meant he was at high risk of severe disease or death if he were to contract COVID-19.
Read MoreThe Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has reminded Government decision-makers of their responsibility to properly consider risks of harm and threats to safety when cancelling or refusing a visa on ‘character’ grounds.
The Court unanimously ruled that the Assistant Minister made a jurisdictional error in deciding not to revoke the cancellation of Mr Omar’s visa, by failing to adequately consider risks of harm he would face on return to Somalia, including by deferring a consideration of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations.
Read MoreThe Republic of Nauru v WET040 [2018] HCA 60
On 7 November 2018, the High Court of Australia (HCA), comprised of Gageler, Nettle and Edelman JJ, unanimously allowed an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Nauru.
Read MoreTTY167 v Republic of Nauru
The High Court of Australia has decided that Nauru's Refugee Status Review Tribunal (Tribunal) acted unreasonably in refusing the appellant's protection application after the appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal at a scheduled hearing.
Read MoreIn two recent interlocutory matters, the Federal Court has ordered the Australian Government to remove refugee children from Nauru to Australia in order to receive appropriate mental health treatment.
Read MoreThe Court of Justice of the European Union has held that subjecting an asylum seeker to psychological tests, designed to provide an indication of their sexual orientation, breaches their right to respect for private and family life under Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Read MoreMaythem Kamil Radhi (Appellant) v The District Court of Manukau (The First Respondent) and The Commonwealth of Australia (The Second Respondent) [2017] NZSC 198
The Australian Federal Police sought the extradition of a New Zealand resident, alleging that he was involved in helping asylum seekers travel from Indonesia to Australia. The New Zealand Supreme Court found that although the man was eligible for surrender, there was a "real risk" that he would be subjected to indefinite administrative detention once in Australia and that this risk constituted a compelling or extraordinary circumstance warranting referral to the Minister.
Read MoreThe Nauruan Government recently abolished the mechanism by which parties could appeal decisions from the Supreme Court of Nauru to the High Court of Australia, leaving asylum seekers without an avenue of appeal to challenge unsuccessful decisions of the Supreme Court. This move has come shortly after the High Court's recent landmark decision in BRF038 v The Republic of Nauru [2017] HCA 56 where it held that, in certain circumstances, appeals from the Supreme Court to the High Court lie as of right, without the parties first having to seek leave of the Court.
Read MoreAraya v Nevsun Resources Ltd., 2017 BCCA 401
A group of Eritrean refugees are one step closer to trial in a Canadian court case alleging serious human rights abuses against a Canadian mining company, after the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed a strike-out application. The decision is the first time that a Canadian appellate court has allowed a tort claim for breaches of international law peremptory norms – such as the prohibition of slavery – to proceed.
Read MoreThe High Court has held that in order for an applicant to be covered by the Migration Act’s complementary protection regime, the element of “intention” requires a person’s actual, subjective intention to bring about pain, suffering or extreme humiliation.
Read MoreOn 26 June 2017 the Supreme Court of the United States temporarily reinstated President Trump's travel ban, but a majority of the Court held that the temporary reinstatement will not apply to people who can show they have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or organisation already in the United States.
Read MoreThe UK Supreme Court has unanimously held that deportation certificates issued by the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for the Home Department were unlawful. The recipients of the deportation orders in this case were entitled to appeal against the Home Secretary’s immigration decisions by a judicial review procedure to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). However, the effect of the deportation orders was that the appeals could only be brought after the appellants’ removal from the UK. This is known as the ‘deport first, appeal later’ policy. The Court found that difficulties with evidence and legal representation meant these appeals were not sufficiently effective.
Read MoreIn a unanimous 3-0 decision, the United States Court of Appeal maintained the freeze on US President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration order suspending entry of people from 7 countries for 90 days, indefinitely suspending the entry of Syrian refugees and suspending the United States Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days.
Read MoreMr Nasir was an Indonesian cook on a boat that brought asylum seekers to Australia. He was convicted of aggravated people smuggling under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Mr Nasir was detained without charge for 146 days on Christmas Island and in the Northern Territory, pursuant to an unreviewable Criminal Justice Stay Certificate. He did not appear before a judge for 177 days. At trial, Mr Nasir received the mandatory minimum sentence of five years with a three-year non-parole period pursuant to section 236B of the Migration Act, despite his undisputed minor role as a cook and non-organiser of the voyage.
Read MoreThe European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) finds in favour of a Nigerian asylum seeker, who was detained pending deportation, against the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland for violations of article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which enshrines the right to liberty and security of the person.
Read MoreRay Fuller v Loretta E Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, 833 F.3d 866 (7th Cir, 2016)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has refused to review the case of a person seeking asylum, despite the man's fear of persecution should he be returned to Jamaica. Ray Fuller testified that he identified as bisexual and there was evidence he was at risk of harassment and torture.
Read MoreOn 10 February 2014 the Department of Immigration and Border Protection inadvertently published on its website the identifying details of 9,258 applicants for protection visas held in immigration detention (“Data Breach”). The Data Breach carried the risk that authorities in the named detainees’ countries of origin would become aware that they had sought protection in Australia, creating a new and independent risk of harm if those detainees were returned to those countries. The Department conducted International Treaties Obligations Assessments (“ITOAs”) to determine if the Data Breach affected Australia’s non-refoulement obligations with respect to the detainees.
Read MoreThe European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has held that immigration detention of an LGBTI Iranian person seeking asylum in Hungary contravened article 5(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention).
Read MoreThe United States Supreme Court made a four-four split decision in a nine word judgement over the legality of President Obama’s deferred action immigration program. This upholds the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's decision to maintain a nationwide injunction preventing implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (DAPA) and the expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA).
Read MoreThe United Kingdom remains the only EU Member State which does not impose a statutory time limit on immigration detention prior to deportation. A challenge to that position was recently heard before the European Court of Human Rights. While the Court acknowledged that such time limits may be preferable, it concluded that the absence of a fixed time limit does not, in itself, render the UK’s immigration detention system incompatible with Article 5(1)(f) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention).
Read MoreThe Commonwealth Government has a duty of care to facilitate a safe and lawful abortion for a refugee who was sexually assaulted while on Nauru awaiting resettlement. The court’s orders included an injunction to restrain the Minister from procuring an abortion for the applicant in Papua New Guinea (‘PNG’), but did not require the Minister to bring the applicant to Australia.
Read MoreIn a highly anticipated decision the High Court has rejected a constitutional challenge to the Federal Government’s regional processing framework. The majority of the Court held that s198AHA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) authorised the Commonwealth Government’s participation in the plaintiff’s detention. This decision was made after retrospective legislation was introduced after the case was filed with retrospective operation.
Read MoreThe High Court declined to overturn a decision of a Delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which refused the grant of a permanent visa to the family of an Iranian man, who was already in Australia on a protection visa. The Court held that despite the persuasive evidence put forward by the plaintiff in advancement of the application, it was open to the Delegate to decline the grant of the visa, as the evidence was not so compelling, when factoring in the limited capacity of Australia to accommodate refugees, as to warrant special consideration by the Delegate.
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Canada has handed down twin rulings narrowing the interpretation of people smuggling laws in relation to both the offence of people smuggling, and the inadmissibility of migrants alleged to have been involved in people smuggling. McLachlin CJ delivered the leading judgment in both cases, with whom all judges unanimously agreed. The separate but related proceedings of B010 v Canada and R v Appulonappa considered two key people smuggling provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) – B010 v Canada considered the inadmissibility of people smugglers, while R v Appulonappa considered the prosecution of people smugglers.
Read MoreThe High Court of England and Wales has found that the “Fast Track” appeal process, which imposed extremely short timelines for hearing appeals against asylum seeker application decisions, was ultra vires, or beyond power, as a result of structural unfairness.
Read MoreThe High Court of Australia has unanimously held that the Minister cannot refuse to grant a protection visa to an individual who has validly applied for a visa on the sole basis that the individual is an “unauthorised maritime arrival”. In this case, as the Minister had refused to grant a protection visa to the plaintiff on this basis, and therefore failed to consider the plaintiff's visa application according to law as he had been directed to do by the Court, the Court issued a writ of peremptory mandamus requiring the Minister to grant the plaintiff a protection visa.
Read MoreThe High Court of Australia has unanimously held that the Minister cannot refuse to grant a protection visa to an individual who has validly applied for a visa on the sole basis that the individual is an “unauthorised maritime arrival”. In this case, as the Minister had refused to grant a protection visa to the plaintiff on this basis, and therefore failed to consider the plaintiff's visa application according to law as he had been directed to do by the Court, the Court issued a writ of peremptory mandamus requiring the Minister to grant the plaintiff a protection visa.
Read MoreBy a narrow majority (4:3) the High Court found that the Australian Government’s detention of 157 asylum seekers for nearly a month on board a customs vessel was legal under Australian domestic law.
Read MoreThe European Court of Justice examined Dutch authorities’ assessment of the credibility of men seeking asylum on the basis of feared persecution because of their declared homosexuality. The Court found that assessment of the credibility of a person’s claim to be homosexual should be sensitive to individual circumstances, not based on stereotypes, and consistent with fundamental human rights.
Read MoreThe High Court unanimously held invalid the grant by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection of a temporary safe haven visa to the plaintiff – a stateless asylum seeker – which had the effect of precluding the plaintiff from making a valid application for a protection visa, in circumstances where the plaintiff’s detention had been prolonged for the purpose of the Minister considering the exercise of power to allow the plaintiff to make a valid application for a visa of his choice.
Read MoreIn each case, the French authorities refused to issue visas for the applicants’ children. The authorities alleged that there were difficulties in establishing the children’s civil registration status as the birth certificates provided in support of the visa applications were not authentic. The applicants appealed, claiming that the difficulties they encountered in the Family Reunification Procedure constituted a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Read MoreThe UK High Court has found that the Detainee Fast Track system for detaining asylum seekers is unlawful because the system carried “an unacceptable risk of unfairness” primarily due to the unjustifiable delay in allocating lawyers to asylum seekers.
Read MoreThe European Court of Human Rights found that Switzerland’s intended expulsion of an Ecuadorian man who had unsuccessfully claimed asylum would violate his, his second daughter’s and his wife’s right to a family under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, despite the man’s previous criminal convictions and his separation from his wife.
Read MoreIn two judgments handed down on 20 June 2014, the High Court held that section 85 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) does not empower the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to make a determination limiting the number of protection visas that may be granted during a financial year. Accordingly, the Minister's determination of 4 March 2014 limiting the maximum number of protection visas for the financial year ending on 30 June 2014 to 2,733 was invalid.
Read MoreThe High Court has unanimously rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of the sections of the Migration Act which give the Immigration Minister the power to designate regional processing countries. The High Court also rejected a challenge to the Minister’s exercise of this power with respect to the decision to designate PNG as a regional processing centre.
Read MoreThe UK Supreme Court has held that returning an asylum seeker to the country whether they first claimed asylum is prohibited, if it can be established that there is a real risk that the person transferred will suffer inhumane or degrading treatment – which is prohibited by article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court overturned the UK Court Appeal’s decision that there needs to be systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedures of the receiving state before a transfer of an asylum seeker should be prevented under the Dublin Regulation.
Read MoreAl-Gertani v Bosnia and Herzegovina, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1955/2010 (6 November 2013)
An Iraqi asylum-seeker was detained in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the grounds that he was a threat to national security. The United Nations Human Rights Committee found that his prolonged detention was arbitrary in breach of article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, because the State party did not show it was necessary and proportionate, and because he was not provided with the reasons that he was considered a threat and was therefore unable to effectively challenge the detention.
Read More