Indefinite immigration detention ruled unlawful in landmark Australian high court decision

Sometimes you need to take a hard line. I get it.

But indefinite detention is fucking barbaric. And I hope that those affected now have legal recourse due to this decision.

It was never the only solution. It was an expedient solution, and it’s wise to remember that when the architects of that shit show are in power and need to make hard decisions. Because the decision will be the one that maximises their political leverage - it won’t be the one that addresses say…catastrophic climate change, or over irrigation in the Murray basin, or falling education standards, or….

No shit - it's disgraceful it's taken this long as we've pretended the UN refugee convention isn't a thing, but this is some great news.

As an Aussie, thank God. Honestly, I love having foreigners in my hiking group because they're more often respectful

More foreigners is great, and they're not the ones screwing us either (it's the rich boomer investors screwing us all)

I recognise you as a fellow Reddit refugee! :)

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The high court ruled in favour of NZYQ, a stateless Rohingya man, who faced the prospect of detention for life because no country had agreed to resettle him, due to a criminal conviction for sexual intercourse with a 10-year-old minor.

The high court declared that because NZYQ had been detained when there was “no real prospect of his removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future” his detention was unlawful.

Earlier, the solicitor general, Stephen Donaghue, warned that such a ruling would trigger “undefendable” compensation claims and the release of “undesirable” people into the community.

Donaghue submitted that the four justices in the majority of Al-Kateb were aware of the “harsh” possibility of lengthy detention, including for stateless persons who cannot be deported.

Several judges quibbled with Donaghue’s emphasis on NZYQ’s conviction, with Justice Robert Beech-Jones suggesting the constitutional argument has “nothing to do” with the sexual assault.

Donaghue urged the court not to “radically disturb” the legal architecture, noting that the Migration Act requires detention of aliens pending deportation.

The original article contains 763 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Do I understand correctly that if it wasn't for his odd situation, testing the law, that the innocent stateless people could have remained locked up indefinitely?

What a bizarre win.

a stateless Rohingya man, who faced the prospect of detention for life because no country had agreed to resettle him, due to a criminal conviction for sexual intercourse with a 10-year-old minor.

The high court declared that because NZYQ had been detained when there was “no real prospect of his removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future” his detention was unlawful.

Is he likely to be tried now for the pedo rape? Is escaping prosecution for that crime what made him flee his country? Or was that dealt with but no other country will now accept him because of his record?

EDIT: I had missed that the article links to the background story...

in 2015... he pleaded guilty to sexual intercourse with a 10-year old minor.

After serving a non-parole period of three years and four months, NZYQ was released from prison and sent into immigration detention in May 2018