All seven justices of the High Court were of the opinion that indefinite immigration detention for people with no prospect of deportation was unlawful, according to reasons published by the court this afternoon.
Very happy that a decision I agree with was made by my government, not very common unfortunately
Well I mean, due to the separation of powers, the high court are separate from the parliament and the politicians. Just for the exact case of being able to decide against what a parliament had chosen. In this case you’re still disagreeing with the governnent decision to indefinitely hold illegal immigrants, who in this case are legitimate asylum seekers, even while agreeing with the judicial process applying the constitution to that parliamentry decision.
Hope that helps reconcile your feelings since you can rest assured your still disagreeing with part of the government.
Actually I’m not sure which part you agree or disagree with. The decision that it’s unlawful to indefinitely detain them is pretty trivial. Basically not much changed.
Ms O’Neil said the government aimed to have legislation passed to re-detain the cohort by the last day of sitting, currently scheduled as December 7.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
All seven justices of the High Court were of the opinion that indefinite immigration detention for people with no prospect of deportation was unlawful, according to reasons published by the court this afternoon.
The decision centred on the case of a Rohingya man, who had been in immigration detention after serving a sentence for child sex offences and could not be deported.
The ruling was handed down earlier this month, and overturned a two-decade-old precedent effectively allowing indefinite detention.
The High Court’s reasons show the judges decided to overturn that case from 2004 because they found it was “incomplete and, accordingly, inaccurate” in suggesting that indefinite detention was lawful because it made someone available for deportation at some later stage.
The judges said the principle couldn’t apply if other countries weren’t prepared to accept someone Australia wanted to deport.
The original article contains 139 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 0%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The original article contains 139 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 0%.
Solid effort!
To be clear, that’s a bug. The actual article is much longer.
