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/20/scott-morrisons-cap-on-protection-visas-struck-down-by-high-court

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Scott Morrison's cap on protection visas struck down by high court Scott Morrison's cap on protection visas struck down by high court
(about 20 hours later)
The high court has struck down Scott Morrison’s cap on the number of protection visas that can be granted to asylum seekers who arrived by boat. The high court has struck down Scott Morrison’s cap on the number of protection visas that can be granted to asylum seekers who arrived by boat in a decision that may affect the claims of thousands of asylum seekers.
The court handed down two decisions on Friday relating to different asylum seekers who were found to be owed protection obligations, but could not be granted visas because of the minister’s cap. All seven high court judges found the cap was invalid.The court handed down two decisions on Friday relating to different asylum seekers who were found to be owed protection obligations, but could not be granted visas because of the minister’s cap. All seven high court judges found the cap was invalid.
Both decisions initially began as challenges to the introduction of a form of temporary protection visas by the minister, which was later disallowed by the Senate.Both decisions initially began as challenges to the introduction of a form of temporary protection visas by the minister, which was later disallowed by the Senate.
After the temporary visas were struck down, the minister introduced a cap on the number of protection claims by boat arrivals already in Australia. After the temporary visas were struck down the minister introduced a cap on the number of protection claims by boat arrivals already in Australia.
David Manne, who led the legal team on behalf of a 15-year-old unaccompanied minor, said the decision could have major ramifications for asylum seekers across Australia.
“What this means is that the government must get on with processing the refugee visas that our client and many others are entitled to, which is a permanent protection visa,” he said,
“This really is not only a major victory for this boy but also potentially for thousands of other refugees who have been left in limbo in our community and in detention that the government has sought to block from getting their protection visa. It’s also a very significant victory for the rule of law in Australia.”
Manne said the government had engaged in a “pattern of conduct” to attempt to avoid granting refugees protection visas. A key part of the judgment found that the immigration minister had ignored a 90-day period to make decisions on refugee protection applications.
“It makes clear that there are laws in this country which were ignored by the government which require that a decision on a refugee protection visa be made in 90 days in order to limit the prolonged detention of people,” he said.
Katie Wrigley, principal solicitor at the Refugee Advice and Casework Service, which represents a large number of asylum seekers, said many of their clients’ claims could now be processed.Katie Wrigley, principal solicitor at the Refugee Advice and Casework Service, which represents a large number of asylum seekers, said many of their clients’ claims could now be processed.
“The court ordered that the minister must consider and determine each of those person’s protection claims,” she said.“The court ordered that the minister must consider and determine each of those person’s protection claims,” she said.
She added that there were concerns that the federal government may attempt to place another cap on the number of visas that could be granted in another way.She added that there were concerns that the federal government may attempt to place another cap on the number of visas that could be granted in another way.
“The only thing we are concerned about as a result of this decision is that there may be a new piece of legislation or an instrument that may mean that we are looking at the same issue.“The only thing we are concerned about as a result of this decision is that there may be a new piece of legislation or an instrument that may mean that we are looking at the same issue.
“What may happen is a new form of regulation could come into force that would again prevent applications being made.”“What may happen is a new form of regulation could come into force that would again prevent applications being made.”