This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/18/png-offshore-detention-challenge-fails-in-the-australian-high-court
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| PNG offshore detention challenge fails in the Australian high court | PNG offshore detention challenge fails in the Australian high court |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| A challenge to Australia’s offshore detention regime in Papua New Guinea has failed in the high court in Australia. | A challenge to Australia’s offshore detention regime in Papua New Guinea has failed in the high court in Australia. |
| The legal challenge, made by one of the asylum seekers on Manus Island known as S156, argued the federal government had unlawfully declared Papua New Guinea a regional processing centre under the Migration Act. | The legal challenge, made by one of the asylum seekers on Manus Island known as S156, argued the federal government had unlawfully declared Papua New Guinea a regional processing centre under the Migration Act. |
| The case was led by Mark Robinson SC and Jay Williams, and challenged the detention regime on the grounds it was unconstitutional and that there was an administrative error of law. | The case was led by Mark Robinson SC and Jay Williams, and challenged the detention regime on the grounds it was unconstitutional and that there was an administrative error of law. |
| The constitutional arguments failed, with the court ruling the commonwealth had the power to declare third countries for refugee processing under the act. | |
| “The principal argument made was that the regional processing scheme extended beyond removing citizens and therefore exceeded the commonwealth’s power,” said Joyce Chia, the senior research associate at the Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. | |
| “Essentially the high court said that may be what’s happening but the reality is the legislation only provides for removal. All it does it, at best, implies that more must be done. It only affects removal from Australia and that is clearly within the scope of the aliens power,” she said. | |
| The court also found there was no administrative law error, and that the minister had met all the requirements of the act. Chia said the decision left the immigration minister with “a broad range of powers” to determine what was relevant for offshore processing countries. | |
| “The high court upheld the very deliberate drafting of parliamentary counsel, noting that the main provision only required the minister to have regard to the diplomatic assurances,” Chia said. | |
| “The minister could consider these things – such as indefinite detention, domestic law, the capability of Papua New Guinea – but they were not required to be considered.” | |
| The court’s decision was unanimous, with six judges jointly writing the decision. | The court’s decision was unanimous, with six judges jointly writing the decision. |