High Court rejects Malaysian Solution (4 Viewers)

[Selador]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html

http://www.news.com.au/national/hig...ap-deal-unlawful/story-e6frfkvr-1226126528979

THE High Court has vetoed the Malaysian asylum seeker swap in a ruling that has smashed the Government's entire strategy to halt people smugglers.

It also could spell the end of its plans to set up any off-shore processing of refugee applications.

The Full Bench, in an expedited judgment, found by five to two that Malaysia was not bound to look after the human rights of the 400 asylum seekers now under Australian care.

It found Immigration Minister Chris Bowen could not declare Malaysia to be a country where people could be sent to be processed as refugees.

The court ruled that no country could receive asylum seekers from Australia unless it was legally bound by international law or its own domestic law to provide access for asylum seekers to protection pending processing of their applications for refugee status.

Malaysia is not a signatory of the United Nations conventions on refugees.

“Today the High Court held invalid the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's declaration of Malaysia as a country to which asylum seekers who entered Australia at Christmas Island can be taken for processing of their asylum claims,'' said a statement from the court.

“After an expedited hearing before the Full Bench, the court by majority made permanent the injunctions that had been granted earlier and restrained the minister from taking to Malaysia two asylum seekers who arrived at Christmas Island, as part of a larger group, less than four weeks ago.''

 

[SylviaB]

sucks to be gillard

 

[cosmo kramer]

yet another JuLIAR failure is there no end to the incompetence of the labor govt???!!?

 

[zombie omie jay]

election time

 

[Lolsmith]

We should just kill them

Or send them as live exports to Indonesia

 

[Lolsmith]

bec0z w3 care s0 much about da c0ws but n0t hooman beens!!1!!!11!!1

 

[zombie omie jay]

if there was an election tomorrow i would totally vote

not

 

[Lentern]

If the HC says you can't process asylum seekers in a country that hasn't signed the convention, how did the Howard government do the Nauru thingy? Or is this a sign of the changing nature of the bench under French? Calinan, Mcughe and Gleeson would have all been around for the Nauru affair, since replaced by Keifel, Bell and French. (Kirby has been replaced too but from recollection he held that Nauru was illegal)

 

[cosmo kramer]

the only reason i vote is because i dont want a big fat fine in the mail

 

[Chemical Ali]

thank god for that

I don't want to live in a country that actively sends kids to be locked up in some shit hole indefinitely

 

[cosmo kramer]

yeah think about all the slave labour hours that are wasted doing that

 

[Chemical Ali]

well they've tried human trafficking, why not the slavery solution

 

[cosmo kramer]

its the perfect solution its slaves that come to you

 

[SylviaB]

if there was an election tomorrow i would totally vote

not

liberals are worth voting for tbh

 

[Lentern]

liberals are worth voting for tbh

But you're not a conservative?

 

[Garygaz]

i would be so more inclined to vote liberal if tony fucking abbott wasn't at the helm. malcolm please save us.

 

[Azure]

Hate them both but Gillard is so terrible it hurts.

 

[Rafy]

Good summary of what the court has held:

The Court held that, under s 198A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Minister cannot validly declare a country (as a country to which asylum seekers can be taken for processing) unless that country is legally bound to meet three criteria. The country must be legally bound by international law or its own domestic law to: provide access for asylum seekers to effective procedures for assessing their need for protection; provide protection for asylum seekers pending determination of their refugee status; and provide protection for persons given refugee status pending their voluntary return to their country of origin or their resettlement in another country. In addition to these criteria, the Migration Act requires that the country meet certain human rights standards in providing that protection.

The Court also held that the Minister has no other power under the Migration Act to remove from Australia asylum seekers whose claims for protection have not been determined. They can only be taken to a country validly declared under s 198A to be a country that provides the access and the protections and meets the standards described above.

 

[zombie omie jay]

yeah no i definitely wouldnt vote for the liberals lol not after the shit nsw libs pulled plus abbott lied to me he said he was about freedom and he is not

 

[Lentern]

yeah no i definitely wouldnt vote for the liberals lol not after the shit nsw libs pulled plus abbott lied to me he said he was about freedom and he is not

When has that bible bashing bastard ever indicated he believed in freedom? The Ru486 debate did it for me.