How Does Our Government’s Treatment Of Asylum Seekers Stand up in Court?

Here are some challenges to Dept Of Immigration and Border Protection in court from Human Rights Commission…food for thought!

TITLE: Delegate of the President reports on Charlie v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) [2014] AusHRC 90 | Australian Human Rights Commission

PORTFOLIO: Attorney-General’s

URL: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/media-releases/delegate-president-reports-charlie-v-commonwealth-australia-department

SNIPPET: A delegate of the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission has found that the failure of the former Ministers for Immigration to exercise their powers to make a residence determination in respect of Mr Daniel Charlie during the period from November 2009 to September 2011 when he was detained at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (VIDC) was inconsistent with his right to liberty in article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and arbitrarily interfered with his family in breach of articles 17(1) and 23(1) of the ICCPR. Mr Charlie was released from VIDC on 20 September 2011 when he was granted a Removal Pending Bridging Visa. The Commonwealth denied that his detention was arbitrary and states it was appropriate as it was both (a) based on legitimate concerns about Mr Charlie’s character and the risk his release could pose to the Australian community, and (b) for the purpose of removing him from Australia.

TITLE: President reports on AH v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) [2014] AusHRC 88 | Australian Human Rights Commission

PORTFOLIO: Attorney-General’s

URL: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/media-releases/president-reports-ah-v-commonwealth-australia-department-immigration-and-border

SNIPPET: The President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, has found that the Commonwealth’s failure to detain Mr AH in the least restrictive manner possible is inconsistent with the prohibition on arbitrary detention in article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The President was not satisfied that the ongoing detention of Mr AH in an immigration detention centre was proportionate to the aims of the Commonwealth’s immigration policy. The President also recommended that the Commonwealth pay financial compensation to Mr AH in the amount of $200,000.

TITLE: President reports on AQ v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) [2014] AusHRC 84 | Australian Human Rights Commission

PORTFOLIO: Attorney-General’s

URL: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/media-releases/president-reports-aq-v-commonwealth-australia-department-immigration-and-border

SNIPPET: The President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, has found that the Commonwealth’s failure to release Mr AQ from closed immigration detention for a period of 27 months was inconsistent with the prohibition on arbitrary detention in article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (at that time known as the Department of Immigration and Citizenship) had assessed Mr AQ to be a refugee on 23November 2011.. A copy of this report: AQ v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) is online.

TITLE: President reports on FA, FB, FC and FD v Commonwealth (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) [2014] AusHRC 83 | Australian Human Rights Commission

PORTFOLIO: Attorney-General’s

URL: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/media-releases/president-reports-fa-fb-fc-and-fd-v-commonwealth-department-immigration-and

SNIPPET: Four men denied refugee status were held in closed immigration detention facilities for prolonged periods despite meeting the criteria for community detention. Mr FA, a Vietnamese man was first considered for community detention after 2 years in immigration detention. A copy of this report Fadhel v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) is available online.

TITLE: President reports on Fadhel v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) [2014] AusHRC 82 | Australian Human Rights Commission

PORTFOLIO: Attorney-General’s

URL: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/media-releases/president-reports-fadhel-v-commonwealth-australia-department-immigration-and

SNIPPET: The President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, has found that Mr Fadhel’s detention in an immigration detention centre is arbitrary within the meaning of article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The President also found that Mr Fadhel’s continued detention has caused him a level of mental impairment such that it amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the ICCPR.. The President found that Mr Fadhel’s mental health has significantly deteriorated whilst he has been detained in closed immigration detention. Mr Fadhel has repeatedly engaged in self-harm. Mental health professionals assessing Mr Fadhel have repeatedly recommended his release into the community, stating that this was essential for his treatment. The Department has also been advised by a psychologist who has assessed Mr Fadhel on a number of occasions that if Mr Fadhel’s detention were to con tinue, he

TITLE: President reports on HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) [2014] AusHRC 87 | Australian Human Rights Commission

PORTFOLIO: Attorney-General’s

URL: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/media-releases/president-reports-ha-hb-hc-hd-and-he-v-commonwealth-australia-department

SNIPPET: The President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, conducted an inquiry into complaints by five men who are or were in closed immigration detention. Messrs HA, HB, HC, HD and HE arrived on Christmas Island as irregular maritime arrivals between late 2009 and early 2010. Each of them sought asylum in Australia and was transferred from Christmas Island to Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (VIDC). A copy of this report HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) is available online.

TITLE: President reports on Jafari v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) [2014] AusHRC 85 | Australian Human Rights Commission

PORTFOLIO: Attorney-General’s

URL: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/media-releases/president-reports-jafari-v-commonwealth-australia-department-immigration-and

SNIPPET: The President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, has found that the Commonwealth’s failure to detain Mr Samad Ali Jafari in the least restrictive manner possible was inconsistent with the prohibition on arbitrary detention in article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The President was not satisfied that the detention of Mr Jafari in an immigration detention centre was proportionate to the aims of the Commonwealth’s immigration policy. A copy of this report: Jafari v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) is available online.

TITLE: President reports on MG v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) [2014] AusHRC 86 | Australian Human Rights Commission

PORTFOLIO: Attorney-General’s

URL: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/media-releases/president-reports-mg-v-commonwealth-australia-department-immigration-and-border

SNIPPET: The President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, has found that the Commonwealth’s failure to place Mr MG in a less restrictive form of detention than in an immigration detention facility was inconsistent with the prohibition on arbitrary detention in article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).. The Commonwealth maintained that Mr MG’s detention was justified to prevent risk to the Australian community. President Triggs found that to the extent Mr MG posed any such risk, it could have been mitigated. It did not justify holding Mr MG in a closed detention facility for a period of 42 months.. A copy of this report: MG v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) is online.

This list goes on…

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “How Does Our Government’s Treatment Of Asylum Seekers Stand up in Court?

  1. Pingback: cuts shop saws
  2. Pingback: read

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s