Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Others

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: High Court
• Judge: French CJ,Kiefel,Nettle JJ.,Bell J.,Gageler J.,Keane J.,Gordon J.
• Judgment Date: 03 February 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] HCA 1
• Docket Number: M68/2015
• Date: 03 February 2016

[2016] HCA 1

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ

M68/2015

Plaintiff M68/2015

Plaintiff

and

Minister For Immigration and Border Protection & Ors

Defendants

Representation

R Merkel QC and C L Lenehan with R Mansted, D P Hume and E Bathurst for the plaintiff (instructed by Human Rights Law Centre)

J T Gleeson SC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth and G R Kennett SC with A M Mitchelmore and P D Herzfeld for the first and second defendants (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

S P Donaghue QC with K E Foley and C J Tran for the third defendant (instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers)

Interveners

G R Donaldson SC, Solicitor-General for the State of Western Australia with F B Seaward for the Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening (instructed by State Solicitor (WA))

P J Dunning QC, Solicitor-General of the State of Queensland with F J Nagorcka for the Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening (instructed by Crown Solicitor (Qld))

Constitution, ss 51(xix), 61.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 198AB, 198AD, 198AHA.

Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Migration — Regional processing — Where plaintiff was ‘unauthorised maritime arrival’ upon entry into Australian migration zone — Where plaintiff was removed to regional processing centre on Nauru pursuant to s 198AD of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) — Where Commonwealth entered into arrangement in relation to regional processing functions — Whether plaintiff was detained by Commonwealth at Nauru Regional Processing Centre — Whether principles in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1 apply.

Constitutional law (Cth) — Executive power of Commonwealth — Whether conduct of Commonwealth authorised by s 61 of Constitution — Whether conduct of Commonwealth authorised by s 198AHA of Migration Act.

Constitutional law (Cth) — Legislative power of Commonwealth — Whether s 198AHA of Migration Act is a law with respect to aliens — Whether s 198AHA of Migration Act is a valid law of Commonwealth.

Procedure — Standing — Whether plaintiff has standing to challenge lawfulness of conduct of Commonwealth with respect to plaintiff's past detention.

Private international law — Act of State doctrine — Where plaintiff's detention imposed by laws of Nauru — Whether Australian court should pronounce on constitutional validity of legislation of another country.

Words and phrases — ‘aliens power’, ‘constraints upon the plaintiff's liberty’, ‘control’, ‘detention’, ‘effective control’, ‘memorandum of understanding’, ‘non-statutory executive power’, ‘regional processing country’, ‘regional processing functions’.

ORDER

The questions stated by the parties in the amended special case dated 7 October 2015, as paraphrased, be answered as follows:

Question (1)

Does the plaintiff have standing to challenge whether the conduct of the Commonwealth or the Minister in securing, funding and participating in the plaintiff's detention at RPC 3 on Nauru was authorised by a valid law of the Commonwealth or was part of the executive power of the Commonwealth?

Answer

Yes.

Question (2a)

Was the conduct of the Commonwealth in signing the Memorandum of Understanding dated 3 August 2013 authorised by s 61 of the Constitution?

Answer

Yes.

Question (2b)

Was the conduct of the Commonwealth in giving effect to that arrangement authorised by a valid law of the Commonwealth?

Answer

Yes, it was authorised by s 198AHA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which is a valid law of the Commonwealth.

Question (3)

Were the laws by which the plaintiff was detained on Nauru contrary to the Constitution of Nauru?

Answer

The question does not arise.

Questions (4) and (5)

Was the conduct of the Commonwealth in securing, funding and participating in the plaintiff's detention at RPC 3 on Nauru authorised by a valid law of the Commonwealth?

Answer

Yes, see the answer to questions (2a) and (2b).

Question (6)

If the plaintiff were returned to Nauru, would the Commonwealth or the Minister be authorised to continue to perform the Memorandum of Understanding dated 3 August 2013 and to secure, fund and participate in the plaintiff's detention on Nauru?

Answer

Unnecessary to answer.

Question (7)

If the plaintiff were returned to Nauru would her detention there be contrary to Art 5(1) of the Constitution of Nauru?

Answer

Unnecessary to answer.

Questions (8) and (9)

If the plaintiff were returned to Nauru, would the Commonwealth or the Minister be authorised to secure, fund and participate in the plaintiff's detention by a valid law of the Commonwealth?

Answer

Unnecessary to answer.

Questions (10) and (12)

If the plaintiff were to be returned to Nauru, does s 198AD(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) require that she be taken there as soon as reasonably practicable?

Answer

Unnecessary to answer.

Question (11)

If yes to question (10), if the plaintiff were returned to Nauru would her detention be contrary to the Constitution of Nauru?

Answer

Unnecessary to answer.

Question (13)

What, if any, relief should be granted to the plaintiff?

Answer

The plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration sought.

Question (14)

Who should pay the costs of the special case and of the proceedings generally?

Answer

The plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs.

1 French CJ, Kiefel AND Nettle JJ. The plaintiff is a Bangladeshi national who was an ‘unauthorised maritime arrival’ (‘UMA’) as defined by s 5AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) upon entering Australia's migration zone. She was detained by officers of the Commonwealth and taken to Nauru pursuant to s 198AD(2) of the Migration Act, which provides that:

‘An officer must, as soon as reasonably practicable, take an unauthorised maritime arrival to whom this section applies from Australia to a regional processing country.’

Section 198AD(3) of the Migration Act provides that, for the purposes of sub-s (2), an officer may place and restrain the UMA on a vehicle or vessel, remove the UMA from the place at which he or she is detained or from a vehicle or vessel, and use such force as is necessary and reasonable.

2 Nauru is a country designated by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (‘the Minister’) under s 198AB(1) of the Migration Act as a ‘regional processing country’. The reference to ‘processing’ is to a determination by Nauru of claims by UMAs to refugee status under the Refugees Convention 1. Both Australia and Nauru are signatories to that Convention. Directions have been made under s 198AD(5) of the Migration Act by the Minister as to the particular classes of UMAs who are to be taken to Nauru.

3 On 3 August 2013, the Commonwealth and Nauru entered into an arrangement relating to persons who have travelled irregularly by sea to Australia and whom Australian law authorises to be transferred to Nauru. This second Memorandum of Understanding (‘the second MOU’) recorded an agreement that the Commonwealth may transfer and Nauru would accept such persons, there referred to as ‘transferees’. Administrative arrangements for regional processing and settlement arrangements in Nauru of 11 April 2014 between the governments of the two countries (‘the Administrative Arrangements’) confirm that transferees will remain on Nauru whilst their claims to refugee status are processed. By the second MOU and the Administrative Arrangements, Nauru undertook to allow transferees to stay lawfully in its territory and the Commonwealth agreed to lodge applications with the Government of Nauru for visas for transferees. The Commonwealth was to bear the costs associated with the second MOU.

4 The plaintiff claims to be a refugee to whom the Refugees Convention applies. She has applied to the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Border Control of Nauru to be recognised by Nauru as a refugee. Her application has not yet been determined.

5 Upon her arrival on Nauru the plaintiff was granted a regional processing centre visa (an ‘RPC visa’) by the Principal Immigration Officer of Nauru under reg 9 of the Immigration Regulations 2013 (Nauru). Pursuant to reg 9(6)(a), the plaintiff's RPC visa specified that the plaintiff must reside at the Nauru Regional Processing Centre (‘the Centre’). If a person is recognised by Nauru as a refugee an RPC visa becomes a temporary settlement visa pursuant to reg 9A of the Immigration Regulations 2014 (Nauru) (which replaced the Immigration Regulations 2013 (Nauru)) and the person is no longer required to reside at the Centre and may depart and re-enter Nauru.

6 Because the plaintiff is a UMA brought to Nauru pursuant to s 198AD of the Commonwealth Migration Act, the plaintiff is a ‘protected person’ for the purposes of the Asylum Seekers (Regional Processing Centre) Act 2012 (Nauru) (‘the RPC Act’). Pursuant to s 18C(1) of the RPC Act, a protected person may not leave the Centre without the approval of an authorised officer, an operational manager of the Centre, or other authorised persons. Any protected person who attempts to do so commits an offence against the law of Nauru and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months 2.

7 The Centre comprised three sites — RPC 1, RPC 2 and RPC 3. RPC 1 contained the administrative offices of the Centre, other facilities and specialised accommodation. The other sites contained compounds which housed asylum seekers who were single adult males (RPC 2) and single adult females and families (RPC 3). The Commonwealth contracted for the construction and maintenance of the Centre, and funds all costs associated with it, in accordance with the second MOU.

8 From 24 March 2014 to 2 August 2014, the plaintiff resided in RPC 3. It was surrounded by a high metal...