HA, HB, HC, HD and HEv Commonwealth of

Australia (DIBP)[2014] AusHRC 87

© Australian Human Rights Commission 2014.

ISSN 1837-1183

The Australian Human Rights Commission encourages the dissemination and exchange of information presented in this publication.

All material presented in this publication is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence, with the exception of the Australian Human Rights Commission Logo.

To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/3.0/au.

In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Australian Human Rights Commission and abide by the other licence terms.

Design and layout Dancingirl Designs

Printing Masterprint Pty Limited

Electronic format

This publication can be found in electronic format on the website of the Australian Human Rights Commission: www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/index.html.

Contact details

For further information about the Australian Human Rights Commission, please visit www.humanrights.gov.au or email communications@humanrights.gov.au. You can also write to:

Communications Team Australian Human Rights Commission GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection)

Report into arbitrary detention

[2014] AusHRC 87

Australian Human Rights Commission 2014

iv

1 Introduction to this inquiry 3

2 Summaryoffindingsandrecommendations 3

3 Background 4

4 TheComplaints 6

5 Legalframework 65.1 FunctionsoftheCommission 65.2 Scopeof‘act’and‘practice’ 6

6 Humanrightsrelevanttothiscomplaint 76.1 Article9(1)oftheICCPR 76.2 Article7oftheICCPR 7

7 Article9oftheICCPR 87.1 Act1:Failuretodetainintheleastrestrictivemanner

possibleand/orfailuretoconsiderlessrestrictivealternatives toclosedimmigrationdetention 8

7.2 Practice1:Policynottoconsiderindividualswhoarefacing criminalchargesforcommunitydetention 14

8 Article7 158.1 Act1:Failuretodetainintheleastrestrictivemannerpossible

and/orfailuretoconsiderlessrestrictivealternativestoclosedimmigrationdetentionincircumstancesofdeteriorating mentalhealth 15

9 OpportunitytorespondtotheCommission’s preliminaryview 18

10 Recommendations 1810.1Powertomakerecommendations 1810.2Recommendationthatalternativestocloseddetentionbe

considered 1910.3Recommendedpolicychanges 1910.4Considerationofcompensation 1910.5Recommendationthatcompensationbepaid 21

11 TheCommonwealth’sresponsetomy findings andrecommendations 22

Contents

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 1

Australian Human Rights Commission

Level3,175PittStreet,SydneyNSW2000 GPOBox5218,SydneyNSW2001Telephone:0292849600 Facsimile:0292849611 Website: www.humanrights.gov.au

September2014

SenatortheHon.GeorgeBrandisQC Attorney-General ParliamentHouse CanberraACT2600

DearAttorney

I havecompletedmyReportpursuanttos 11(1)(f)(ii)oftheAustralian Human Rights Commission Act 1986(Cth)(AHRCAct)intothecomplaintsmadebyfivemenwhoareorwereinimmigrationdetentionagainsttheCommonwealthofAustralia(DepartmentofImmigrationandBorderProtection)(theCommonwealth).

I havefoundthattheCommonwealth’sfailuretoconsiderthecomplainants’individualcircumstancesandsuitabilityforlessrestrictiveformsofdetention(ifnecessary,withconditions)wasarbitraryandinconsistentwiththeirrighttolibertyunderarticle9oftheInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

I havealsofoundthatthepracticeoftheMinisterforImmigrationandBorderProtectionthathewouldnotconsiderindividualswhoarefacingcriminalchargesforcommunitydetentionwascontrarytoarticle9(1)oftheICCPR.

Inrelationtothreeofthecomplainants,althoughI acceptthatdetentionhadseriousadverseeffectsontheirmentalhealth,I havenotfoundthattheyhavesufferedsuchseverepsychologicalimpairmentthattheirdetentionamountedtocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment.

Byletterdated9September2014,theCommonwealthprovidedaresponsetomyfindingsandrecommendations.ThisresponseissetoutinPart11oftheenclosedReport.

I encloseacopyofmyReport.

Yourssincerely

GillianTriggsPresident AustralianHumanRightsCommission

2

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 3

1 Introduction to this inquiry1. TheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionhasconductedaninquiryintocomplaintsbyfivemenwho

areorwereinimmigrationdetention.EachofthecomplainantsallegesactsoftheCommonwealth,inrelationtotheirdetention,tobeinconsistentwiththeirhumanrights,namelytherightsrecognisedbytheInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR).

2. Thisinquirywasundertakenpursuanttosection11(1)(f)oftheAustralian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)(AHRCAct).

3. ThecomplainantshaveeachaskednottobereferredtobynameinthisReport.Accordingly,I havedirectedthattheidentitiesofeachofthecomplainantsnotbepublishedinaccordancewithsection14(2)oftheAHRCAct.ForthepurposesofthisReport,eachcomplainantwhoseidentityhasbeensuppressedhasbeengivenapseudonymbeginningwithH.

2 Summary of findings and recommendations

4. Asaresultofconductingthisinquiry,I havefoundthat:

• theDepartment’sfailuretoconsiderthecomplainants’individualcircumstancesandsuitabilityforlessrestrictiveformsofdetention(ifnecessary,withconditions)wasarbitraryandinconsistentwiththeirrighttolibertyunderarticle9oftheICCPR;and

• thepracticeoftheMinisterforImmigrationandBorderProtection(Minister)thathewouldnotconsiderindividualswhoarefacingcriminalchargesforcommunitydetentionwascontrarytoarticle9(1)oftheICCPR.

5. AlthoughI acceptthatdetentionhashadseriousadverseeffectsonthementalhealthofMessrsHA,HCandHD,I havenotfoundthattheyhavesufferedsuchseverepsychologicalimpairmentthattheirdetentionamountedtocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment.

6. InlightofmyfindingsregardingtheactsorpracticesoftheCommonwealth,I recommendthattheCommonwealthpayfinancialcompensationtoeachofthecomplainantsinthefollowingamounts:

• Mr HA:$190,000• Mr HB:$175,000• Mr HC:$180,000• Mr HD:$190,000• Mr HE:$175,000.

7. I alsorecommendanumberofpolicychangesinrelationtoconsiderationofindividualsforcommunitydetentionwhoarepersonsofinteresttotheAFPorfacingcriminalcharges(discussedatparagraphs116to119ofthisReport).

4

3 Background8. MessrsHA,HB,HC,HDandHE(thecomplainants)havemadewrittencomplaintstothe

Commission.

9. ThecomplainantsarrivedatChristmasIslandbyboat,inlate2009toearly2010,andweredetainedbytheCommonwealthpursuanttosection189(3)oftheMigration Act 1958 (Cth)(MigrationAct)immediatelyontheirarrival.

10. EachofthecomplainantswastransferredfromChristmasIslandtoImmigrationDetentionCentresonthemainlandin2010anddetainedpursuanttosection189(1)oftheMigrationAct.MessrsHA,HC,HDandHEweretransferredfromChristmasIslandtoVillawoodImmigrationDetentionCentre(VIDC).Mr HBwastransferredfromChristmasIslandtoPerthImmigrationDetentionCentreinFebruary2010andthentoVillawoodImmigrationDetentioncentreinAugust2010.

(a) Protection applications

11. MessrsHAandHCclaimtobestatelessKurds.MessrsHBandHEarenationalsofIran.Mr HDisa nationalofAfghanistan.

12. AnofficeroftheDepartmentassessedthatnoneofthecomplainantsarerefugeeswithinthemeaningoftheConventionRelatingtotheStatusofRefugees.Eachcomplainantsoughtanindependentmeritsreview(IMR)ofthisassessmentandeachwasinitiallyunsuccessful.Fourofthecomplainants(MessrsHA,HB,HDandHE)soughtjudicialreviewoftheirIMRassessments.TheapplicationsofMessrsHA,HBandHDweredismissedandtheapplicationofMr HEwasupheld,theFederalMagistratesCourtfindingthathisIMRprocessinvolvederror.

13. Mr HE’ssecondIMR1wasfinalisedon21March2012,whenhewasfoundtobeapersontowhomAustraliaowesprotectionobligations.Hewasgrantedaprotectionvisaon19June2013andreleasedfromdetention.Theotherfourcomplainantsremaininimmigrationdetentionorcriminalcustody.

(b) Criminal charges

14. InApril2011,eachofthecomplainantsallegedlytookpartinrooftopprotests/riotsatVIDC(April2011riots).FollowingtheApril2011riots,on22April2011,MessrsHC,HDandHEweretransferredtotheMetropolitanRemandandReceptionCentreatSilverwaterCorrectionalCentre(MRRC).ThistransferfollowedarequestfromtheDepartmenttotransferanumberofdetaineestoanalternativeplaceofdetentiontofacilitatetherestorationofpublicorderatVIDC.DuringthistimeatMRRC,thesecomplainantswereinimmigrationdetentionforthepurposesoftheMigrationAct.

15. Subsequently,eachofthecomplainantswaschargedbytheAustralianFederalPolice(AFP).TheywereinitiallyrefusedbailandremandedincriminalcustodyattheMRRC.BailwassubsequentlygrantedandeachofthecomplainantswasreturnedtoimmigrationdetentionatVIDC.Inearly2013,eachofthecomplainantsfacedchargesintheNewSouthWalesSupremeCourtinrelationtotheirallegedroleintheApril2011riots.

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 5

16. Thetablebelowsetsout,respectively:

• thedateonwhicheachofthecomplaintswaschargedbytheAFPundertheCrimes Act 1900 (NSW);

• thedatethateachofthecomplainantswasgrantedbailandreturnedtoimmigrationdetention;and

• whereapplicable,thedatethateachwassentenced.

Complainant Charged by the AFP and held at the MRRC, bail refused

Granted bail and returned to immigration detention

Sentenced/sentence term

Mr HC 4May2011 7March2012 Convictedforaffray.17April2013–sentencedto2years’imprisonment (1yearnon-parole).

Mr HB 4May2011 24May2012 Convictedofriot.28June2013–sentencedto3years’imprisonment (1year10months non-parole).

Mr HD 27June2011 8March2012 Convictedofriot.28June2013–sentencedto20months’imprisonment (1year2months non-parole).

Mr HE 12January2012 21February2012 Foundnotguiltyofrioton17 April 2013.

Mr HA 12January2012 5April2012 Convictedofaffray.5April2013–sentencedto16months’imprisonment (8monthsnon-parole).

6

4 The Complaints17. ThecomplainantshavemadecomplaintstotheCommissionallegingthattheirprolongeddetention

inimmigrationdetentioncentreswasarbitraryandinterferedwiththeirlibertyinbreachofarticle9(1)oftheICCPR.

18. MessrsHA,HCandHDalsoappeartoclaimthattheirdetentioninimmigrationdetentioncentreshadanadverseimpactontheirmentalhealthandamountstocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishmentinbreachofarticle7oftheICCPR.

19. I notethatanumberofthecomplainantsalsocomplainabouttheirdetentioninthehighsecurityBlaxlandcompound,especiallyaftereachofthemhadbeengrantedbail.Inlightofmyfindings(below)inrelationtotheirdetentioninimmigrationdetentioncentresgenerally,I haveformedtheviewthatitisnotnecessarytoseparatelyinquireintotheirplacementwithinVIDC.

5 Legal framework5.1 Functions of the Commission20. Section11(1)(f)oftheAHRCActprovidesthattheCommissionhasafunctiontoinquireintoanyact

orpracticethatmaybeinconsistentwithorcontrarytoanyhumanright.

5.2 Scope of ‘act’ and ‘practice’21. Theterms‘act’and‘practice’aredefinedinsection3(1)oftheAHRCActtoincludeanactdoneora

practiceengagedinbyoronbehalfoftheCommonwealthoranauthorityoftheCommonwealthorunderanenactment.

22. Section3(3)providesthatthereferenceto,ortothedoingof,anactincludesareferencetoarefusalorfailuretodoanact.

23. ThefunctionsoftheCommissionidentifiedinsection11(1)(f)oftheAHRCActareonlyengagedwheretheactcomplainedofisnotonerequiredbylawtobetaken;2thatis,wheretherelevantactorpracticeiswithinthediscretionoftheCommonwealth,itsofficersoragents.

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 7

6 Human rights relevant to this complaint24. TherightsandfreedomsrecognisedbytheICCPRare‘humanrights’withinthemeaningofthe

AHRCAct.

25. ThearticlesoftheICCPRthatareofmostrelevancetothiscomplaintarearticle9(1)andarticle7.

6.1 Article 9(1) of the ICCPR26. Article9(1)oftheICCPRprovides:

Everyonehastherighttolibertyandsecurityofperson.Nooneshallbesubjectedtoarbitraryarrestordetention.Nooneshallbedeprivedofhislibertyexceptonsuchgroundsandinaccordancewithsuchprocedureasareestablishedbylaw.

27. Thefollowingprinciplesrelatingtoarbitrarydetentionwithinthemeaningofarticle9oftheICCPRarisefrominternationalhumanrightsjurisprudence:

(a) ‘detention’includesimmigrationdetention;3

(b) lawfuldetentionmaybecomearbitrarywhenaperson’sdeprivationoflibertybecomesunjust,unreasonableordisproportionatetotheCommonwealth’slegitimateaimofensuringtheeffectiveoperationofAustralia’smigrationsystem;4

(c) arbitrarinessisnottobeequatedwith‘againstthelaw’;itmustbeinterpretedmorebroadlytoincludeelementsofinappropriateness,injusticeorlackofpredictability;5 and

(d) detentionshouldnotcontinuebeyondtheperiodforwhichaStatepartycanprovideappropriatejustification.6

28. TheUnitedNationsHumanRightsCommitteehasheldinseveralcasesthatthereisanobligationontheStatePartytodemonstratethattherewasnotalessinvasivewaythandetentiontoachievetheendsoftheStateParty’simmigrationpolicy(forexampletheimpositionofreportingobligations,suretiesorotherconditions)inordertoavoidtheconclusionthatdetentionwasarbitrary.7

29. Inthecaseofthepresentcomplainants,itwillbenecessarytoconsiderwhethertheirprolongeddetentionincloseddetentionfacilitiescouldbejustifiedasreasonable,necessaryandproportionateonthebasisofparticularreasonsspecifictoeachofthem,andinlightoftheavailablealternativestocloseddetention.

6.2 Article 7 of the ICCPR30. Article7oftheICCPRprovides:

Nooneshallbesubjectedtotortureortocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment.Inparticular,nooneshallbesubjectedwithouthisfreeconsenttomedicalorscientificexperimentation.

8

31. In C v Australia,8theUnitedNationsHumanRightsCommitteefoundthatthecontinueddetentionofCwhentheStatepartywasawareofthedeteriorationofC’smentalhealthconstitutedabreachofarticle7oftheICCPR.TheCommitteestated:

…theStatepartywasaware,atleastfromAugust1992whenhewasprescribedtheuseoftranquilisers,ofpsychiatricdifficultiestheauthorfaced.Indeed,byAugust1993,itwasevidentthattherewasaconflictbetweentheauthor’scontinueddetentionandhissanity.Despiteincreasinglyseriousassessmentsoftheauthor’sconditionsinFebruaryandJune1994(andasuicideattempt)itwasonlyinAugust1994thattheMinisterexercisedhisexceptionalpowertoreleasehimfromimmigrationdetentiononmedicalgrounds(whilelegallyheremainedindetention).Assubsequenteventsshowed,bythatpointtheauthor’sillnesshadreachedsucha levelofseveritythatirreversibleconsequencesweretofollow.

32. Therelevantquestionforthepurposesofarticle7oftheICCPRiswhetherthecomplainants’detentionhascausedalevelofmentalimpairmentsuchthatitamountstocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment.

7 Article 9 of the ICCPR7.1 Act 1: Failure to detain in the least restrictive manner possible

and/or failure to consider less restrictive alternatives to closed immigration detention

33. Allfiveofthecomplainantshavespentprolongedperiodsinclosedimmigrationdetentionfacilities.EachofthecomplainantsarrivedonChristmasIslandinlate2009orearly2010andwasdetainedpursuanttosection189(3)oftheMigrationAct.Atthetimeoftheirdetention,section189(3)oftheMigrationActstatedthat‘ifanofficerknowsorreasonablysuspectsthatapersoninanexcisedoffshoreplaceisanunlawfulnon-citizen,theofficermaydetaintheperson’.TherewasnorequirementfortheCommonwealthtodetainthecomplainantswhiletheywereonChristmasIsland.

34. OncethecomplainantsweretransferredfromChristmasIslandtothemainland,theyweredetainedinVIDCpursuanttosection189(1)oftheMigrationAct.Althoughsection189(1)requiresthedetentionofunlawfulnon-citizens,itdoesnotrequirethatunlawfulnon-citizensbedetainedinanimmigrationdetentionfacility.

35. Undersection195AoftheMigrationAct,iftheMinisterthinksitisinthepublicinteresttodoso,theMinistermaygrantavisatoapersondetainedundersection189oftheMigrationAct.

36. Undersection197ABoftheMigrationAct,iftheMinisterthinksthatitisinthepublicinteresttodoso,theMinistermaymakeadeterminationthatparticularpersonsaretoresideataspecifiedplace,insteadofinimmigrationdetention.

37. Further,thedefinitionof‘immigrationdetention’includes‘beingheldby,oronbehalfofanofficerinanotherplaceapprovedbytheMinisterinwriting’.9

38. Accordingly,thecomplainantscouldhavebeenplacedincommunitydetentionortheMinistercouldhaveapprovedaplaceinthecommunityasaplaceofdetention.

6 Human rights relevant to this complaint

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 9

(a) Mr HA

39. Mr HAarrivedonChristmasIslandon19December2009andwasimmediatelydetained.HewastransferredtoVIDConthemainlandon17July2010.

40. PriortotheApril2011riots,Mr HAhadbeendetainedinclosedimmigrationdetentionfacilitiesforapproximately16months.Duringthisperiodoftime,theDepartmentdidnotconsiderMr HA’ssuitabilityforcommunitydetentionanddidnotreferMr HA’scasetotheMinisterforconsiderationoftheexerciseofhispowersundersection195Aorsection197ABoftheMigrationAct.TheDepartmenthasprovidednoexplanationforitsfailuretoconsiderlessrestrictivealternativestocloseddetentionduringthisextendedperiodoftime.

41. On12January2012,Mr HAwaschargedbytheAFPforhisallegedinvolvementintheApril2011riotsandwastransferredintocriminalcustodyattheMRRC,wherehespentapproximatelythreemonths.Bailwasgrantedon5April2012andMr HAwasreturnedtoimmigrationdetentionatVIDC.

42. Mr HAremainedinimmigrationdetentionatVIDCfrom5April2012until5April2013,whenhewasconvictedofacriminaloffenceandtransferredintocriminalcustody.

43. TheinformationbeforemesuggeststhattheCommonwealthfirstconsideredplacingMr HAinalessrestrictiveformofdetentioninSeptember2011.TheDepartmentadvisesthat:

• on26September2011,Mr HA’scasewasfoundtomeettheguidelinesforreferraltotheMinisterforconsiderationofcommunitydetentionpursuanttosection197ABoftheMigrationAct;

• on7December2011,theDepartmentwasadvisedbytheAFPthatMr HAwastobeformallychargedasaconsequenceofhisinvolvementintheApril2011riots;and

• onthebasisofhisstatusasapersontobecharged,Mr HAwasnolongersuitableforcommunitydetentionconsideration,inlinewiththethenMinister’sadvicetotheDepartmentdated23December2011.

44. ItappearsthatthedecisionnottoconsiderMr HAforcommunitydetentiononceitwasknownthathewastobechargedbytheAFPwasnotmadeonthebasisofanassessmentofMr HA’sindividualcircumstancesortheriskthathemayposetothecommunity;rather,theDepartmentwasactingonthebasisofadirectiongivenbythethenMinisterinrelationtoalldetaineeswithongoingcriminalproceedings.I considerthispracticeseparatelybelow.

45. ItisofsignificantconcernthatthefirsttimetheDepartmentconsideredMr HAforcommunitydetentionwasinSeptember2011,21monthsafterhehadbeenplacedinimmigrationdetention.ThisdelayisinconsistentwiththeCommonwealth’sobligationtodetainMr HAintheleastrestrictivemannerpossible.

46. Mr HAwasgrantedbailon5April2012.ThefactthatbailwasgrantedindicatesthattheCourtconsideredthatremandincriminalcustodypriortotrialwasnotnecessary.I invitedtheDepartmenttoprovidetheCommissionwithacopyofMr HA’sbailconditions,however,atthetimemyNoticeofDecisionwasfinalisedtheCommissionhadnotbeenprovidedwiththisinformation.

47. I findthattheDepartment’sfailuretoconsiderMr HA’sindividualcircumstancesandsuitabilityforlessrestrictiveformsofdetention(ifnecessarywithconditions),eitherinthe20monthspriortoSeptember2011orinthe12monthsafterhehadbeengrantedbail,wasarbitraryandinconsistentwithhisrighttolibertyunderarticle9oftheICCPR.

10

(b) Mr HB

48. Mr HBarrivedonChristmasIslandon14September2009andwasimmediatelydetained.HewastransferredtoPerthImmigrationDetentionCentreon6February2010andon6August2010hewastransferredtoVIDC.

49. PriortotheApril2011riots,Mr HBhadbeendetainedinclosedimmigrationdetentionfacilitiesforapproximately19months.Duringthisperiodoftime,theDepartmentdidnotconsiderMr HB’ssuitabilityforcommunitydetentionanddidnotreferMr HB’scasetotheMinisterforconsiderationoftheexerciseofhispowersundersection195Aorsection197ABoftheMigrationAct.TheDepartmenthasprovidednoexplanationforitsfailuretoconsiderlessrestrictivealternativestocloseddetentionduringthisextendedperiodoftime.

50. On4May2011,followingMr HB’sallegedinvolvementintheApril2011riots,hewaschargedbytheAFPandtransferredtocriminalcustodyintheMRRC.Hewasheldincriminalcustodyforapproximately12months,untilbailwasgrantedon24May2012.

51. Onbeinggrantedbail,Mr HBwastransferredtoVIDC.HeremainedinimmigrationdetentionatVIDCfrom25May2012untilJune2013,whenhewasconvictedofacriminaloffenceandtransferredintocriminalcustody.

52. I understandfromMr HB’scomplaintthatthegrantofbailcontemplatedhimbeingreleasedintothecommunity,onconditionsthatincludedhimnotleavingNSWandreportingtoPoliceeachweek.ItappearstomethatthesebailconditionsaddressedanyrisktheCourtconsideredMr HBmayhaveposedbyresidinginthecommunity.Similarconditionscouldhavebeenimposedonaresidencedetermination.ItisthereforeofconcernthatMr HBwasnotreferredforconsiderationofcommunitydetentionafterhewasgrantedbailandreturnedtoVIDCon25May2012.I invitedtheDepartmenttoprovidetheCommissionwithacopyofMr HB’sbailconditions,however,atthetimemyNoticeofDecisionwasfinalisedtheCommissionhadnotbeenprovidedwiththisinformation.

53. InhiscomplainttotheCommission,Mr HBclaimsthathefirstrequestedtobeconsideredforcommunitydetentioninJanuary2010.TheinformationbeforemesuggeststhattheCommonwealthfirstcontemplatedplacingMr HBinalessrestrictiveformofdetentioninoraroundMay2011.TheDepartmentadvisesthat‘On5May2011,Mr [HB’s]casewasreferredforconsiderationofresidencedetermination.AsMr [HB]hadbeenchargedwithcriminaloffencesandwasincriminalcustodyatthetime(attheSilverwaterCorrectionsCentre(MRRC)),thereferralwasnotassessedagainsttheDepartment’sguidelines.’

54. ItappearsthatthedecisionnottoconsiderMr HBforcommunitydetentiononcehehadbeenchargedbytheAFPwasnotmadeonthebasisofanassessmentofMr HB’sindividualcircumstancesortheriskthathemayposetothecommunity;rather,theDepartmentwasactingonthebasisofadirectiongivenbythethenMinisterinrelationtoalldetaineeswithongoingcriminalproceedings.I considerthispracticeseparatelybelow.

55. ItisofsignificantconcernthatthefirsttimetheDepartmentconsideredMr HBforcommunitydetentionwasinMay2011,20monthsafterhehadbeenplacedinimmigrationdetention.ThisdelayisinconsistentwiththeCommonwealth’sobligationtodetainMr HBintheleastrestrictivemannerpossible.

56. I findthattheDepartment’sfailuretoconsiderMr HB’sindividualcircumstancesandsuitabilityforlessrestrictiveformsofdetention(ifnecessarywithconditions),eitherinthe19monthspriortotheApril2011riotsorinthe13monthsafterhehadbeengrantedbail,wasarbitraryandinconsistentwithhisrighttolibertyunderarticle9oftheICCPR.

7 Article 9 of the ICCPR

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 11

(c) Mr HC

57. Mr HCarrivedonChristmasIslandon31January2010andwasimmediatelydetained.HewastransferredtoVIDConthemainlandon17July2010.

58. PriortotheApril2011riots,Mr HChadbeendetainedinclosedimmigrationdetentionfacilitiesforapproximately15months.Duringthisperiodoftime,theDepartmentdidnotconsiderMr HC’ssuitabilityforcommunitydetentionanddidnotreferMr HC’scasetotheMinisterforconsiderationoftheexerciseofhispowersundersection195Aorsection197ABoftheMigrationAct.TheDepartmenthasprovidednoexplanationforitsfailuretoconsiderlessrestrictivealternativestocloseddetentionduringthisextendedperiodoftime.

59. On22April2011,followingMr HC’sallegedinvolvementintheApril2011riots,hewastransferredtotheMRRCasanalternativeplaceofdetention.On4May2011hewaschargedbytheAFPandwassubsequentlyheldincriminalcustodyforacombinedtotalofapproximately10months,initiallyattheMRRCandfrom2August2011attheNowraCorrectionalCentre.

60. Mr HCwasgrantedbailon7March2012andwasthentransferredtoVIDC.HeremainedinimmigrationdetentionatVIDCfrom8March2012untilApril2013,whenhewasconvictedofacriminaloffenceandtransferredintocriminalcustody.

61. ThefactthatbailwasgrantedindicatesthattheCourtconsideredthatremandincriminalcustodypriortotrialwasnotnecessary.I invitedtheDepartmenttoprovidetheCommissionwithacopyofMr HC’sbailconditions,however,atthetimemyNoticeofDecisionwasfinalisedtheCommissionhadnotbeenprovidedwiththisinformation.

62. TheinformationbeforemesuggeststhattheCommonwealthhasnotconsideredplacingMr HCina lessrestrictiveformofdetention.Initsresponsetothecomplaint,theDepartmentadvisesthat:

• on7February2012,casemanagementwasadvisedthatthethenMinisterwouldnotconsideraplacementincommunitydetentionoraBridgingVisaforanyclientsinimmigrationdetentionwhoarefacingcriminalcharges;

• subsequently,inSeptember2012,theMinisterindicatedthathewouldconsidercommunitydetentionforclientswhohavebeenchargedbytheAFPwithoffencescommittedinimmigrationdetention;

• followingthisadvice,thecomplexcaseresolutionsectionoftheDepartmenthasbeenassessingsuchcasesagainstthesection197ABguidelines;

• whereacasehasbeenassessedasmeetingthesection197ABguidelines,asubmissionisreferredtotheMinisterforhisconsideration.‘Todate,asubmissionhasnotbeenreferredtotheMinister’.

63. ItappearsthatthedecisionnottoconsiderMr HCforcommunitydetentiononcehehadbeenchargedbytheAFPwasnotmadeonthebasisofanassessmentofMr HC’sindividualcircumstancesortheriskthathemayposetothecommunity;rather,theDepartmentwasactingonthebasisofadirectiongivenbythethenMinisterinrelationtoalldetaineeswithongoingcriminalproceedings.I considerthispracticeseparatelybelow.

12

64. AtthetimeIissuedmyNoticeofDecision,IdidnotknowwhethertheDepartmenthadreassessedMr HCunderthesection197ABguidelinessincehefinishedservingthenon-paroleperiodofhissentenceon31May2013.I invitedtheDepartmenttoprovidefurtherinformationonthispoint,however,atthetimethatmyNoticeofDecisionwasfinalisedtheCommissionhadnotbeenprovidedwiththisinformation.Inthisregard,I noteparticularlytheobservationsbyJusticeHulme,thetrialsentencingjudge,that‘therearespecialcircumstances[inMr HC’scase]…andtheycomprisetheaggregatematterdisclosedinthepresentationoftheoffender’ssubjectivecase,particularlyhisanxietyanddepression;hisreturntogaolafterhavingbeeninimmigrationdetentionforasignificantperiod;andthatcustodywillbemoreonerousforhiminthewaysI havedescribed.…I considerthathe,andthecommunity,willbebetterservedbyhimbeingsupervisedoveralengthierparoleperiod,particularlyinrelationtotreatmentforhispsychologicalissues’.

65. BasedonthematerialbeforetheCommission,I findthattheDepartment’sfailuretoconsiderMr HC’sindividualcircumstancesandsuitabilityforlessrestrictiveformsofdetention(ifnecessarywithconditions),eitherinthe15monthspriortotheApril2011riotsorinthe13monthsafterbeinggrantedbail,wasarbitraryandinconsistentwithhisrighttolibertyunderarticle9oftheICCPR.

(d) Mr HD

66. Mr HDarrivedonChristmasIslandon27November2009andwasimmediatelydetained.HewastransferredtoVIDConthemainlandon27March2010.Sometwomonthsearlier,on28January2010,theAustralianSecurityIntelligenceOrganisation(ASIO)hadissuedMr HDwithanon-prejudicialsecurityassessment,pursuanttosection40oftheAustralian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979(Cth)(SecurityClearance).

67. PriortotheApril2011riots,Mr HDhadbeendetainedinclosedimmigrationdetentionfacilitiesforapproximately17months.Duringthisperiodoftime,theDepartmentdidnotconsiderMr HD’ssuitabilityforcommunitydetentionanddidnotreferMr HD’scasetotheMinisterforconsiderationoftheexerciseofhispowersundersection195Aorsection197ABoftheMigrationAct.ThisisparticularlyconcerninginlightofthefactthatASIOhadissuedMr HDwithaSecurityClearance.TheDepartmenthasprovidednoexplanationforitsfailuretoconsiderlessrestrictivealternativestocloseddetentionduringthisextendedperiodoftime.

68. On22April2011,followingMr HD’sallegedinvolvementintheApril2011riots,hewastransferredtotheMRRCasanalternativeplaceofdetention.On27June2011hewaschargedbytheAFPandwassubsequentlyremandedincriminalcustodyforapproximately8months,untilbailwasgrantedon8March2012.Onbeinggrantedbail,Mr HDwasreturnedtoimmigrationdetentionatVIDC.Thefollowingbailconditionswereimposed:

1.ResideatsuchplaceasmaybedeterminedbytheMinister.

2.Ifheistobehousedinthecommunitythenthefollowingconditionsaretoapply:

a. Theyaretonotifythecourtoftheirresidentialaddresswithin24hoursofbeingreleased intothecommunity;

b. Reporttothepolicestationclosesttotheirresidentialaddresswithin24hoursof being releasedintothecommunity;

c. Nottoapplyforanyinternationaltraveldocuments;d. Nottoapproachwithinhalfakilometreofanyinternationaldeparturepoints;e. NotdepartAustralia.Anappropriatepersonistoenterintoagreementtoforfeit

$500 on breachofbail;andf. Theaccusedistoenterintoanagreementtoforfeit$1,000onbreachofbail.

7 Article 9 of the ICCPR

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 13

69. Mr HDthenremainedinimmigrationdetentionatVIDCfrom8March2012until28June2013,whenhewasconvictedofacriminaloffenceandtransferredintocriminalcustody.Inthis15monthperiodthatMr HDwasheldincloseddetention,theDepartmentdidnotconsiderMr HD’ssuitabilityforcommunitydetentionoranotherlessrestrictiveformofdetention(ifnecessary,withappropriateconditionsimposedtomitigateanyidentifiedrisks).NordidtheDepartmentreferMr HD’scasetotheMinisterfortheconsiderationoftheexerciseofhispowersundersection195Aorsection197ABoftheMigrationAct.

70. TheDepartmentstated,bywayofexplanation,that‘theMinisterpreviouslyindicatedthathewillnotconsiderexercisinghispowersundersection195Aandsection197ABoftheMigrationActforclientswithongoingcriminalproceedings’.ItappearsthatthedecisionnottoconsiderMr HDforcommunitydetentiononcehehadbeenchargedbytheAFPwasnotmadeonthebasisofanassessmentofMr HD’sindividualcircumstancesortheriskthathemayposetothecommunity;rather,theDepartmentwasactingonthebasisofadirectiongivenbythethenMinisterinrelationtoalldetaineeswithongoingcriminalproceedings.I considerthispracticeseparatelybelow.

71. I notethatMr HDhadbeengrantedbailon7March2012ontermsthatcontemplatedhisreleaseintothecommunity(subjecttoconditions).ThesebailconditionsaddressedanyrisktheCourtconsideredMr HDmayhaveposedbyresidinginthecommunity.AfterconsideringMr HD’scircumstances,theCourtdidnotfindthatdetentionpriortotrialwasnecessary.

72. I findthattheDepartment’sfailuretoconsiderMr HD’sindividualcircumstancesandsuitabilityforlessrestrictiveformsofdetention(ifnecessarywithconditions),eitherinthe17monthspriortotheApril2011riotsorinthe15monthsafterbeinggrantedbail,wasarbitraryandinconsistentwithhisrighttolibertyunderarticle9oftheICCPR.

(e) Mr HE

73. Mr HEarrivedonChristmasIslandon31January2010andwasimmediatelydetained.HewastransferredtoVIDConthemainlandon17July2010.

74. PriortotheApril2011riots,Mr HEhadbeendetainedinclosedimmigrationdetentionfacilitiesforapproximately15months.Duringthisperiodoftime,theDepartmentdidnotconsiderMr HE’ssuitabilityforcommunitydetentionanddidnotreferMr HE’scasetotheMinisterforconsiderationoftheexerciseofhispowersundersection195Aorsection197ABoftheMigrationAct.TheDepartmenthasprovidednoexplanationforitsfailuretoconsiderlessrestrictivealternativestocloseddetentionduringthisextendedperiodoftime.

75. On 22April2011,followingMr HE’sallegedinvolvementintheApril2011riots,hewastransferredtotheMRRCasanalternativeplaceofdetention.Subsequently,on11May2011,hewastransferredtoMaribyrnongImmigrationDetentionCentre(MIDC).HewaschargedbytheAFPon12January2012andthereafterremandedincriminalcustodyattheMRRC.

76. On21February2012,Mr HEwasgrantedbailandreturnedtoimmigrationdetentionatVIDC.ThereafterhewasdetainedatMIDCandon21August2012hewastransferredtoMelbourneImmigrationTransitAccommodation(MITA),whereheappearstohavebeendetaineduntilhefacedchargesinJanuary–March2013.InApril2013hewasfoundnotguiltyofriotandinJune2013hewasreleasedfromimmigrationdetentiononaprotectionvisa.

77. TheCommissiondoesnothaveacopyofMr HE’sbailconditions.However,thefactthatbailwasgrantedindicatesthattheCourtconsideredthatremandincriminalcustodypriortotrialwasnotnecessary.I invitedtheDepartmenttoprovidetheCommissionwithacopyofMr HE’sbailconditions,however,atthetimethatmyNoticeofDecisionwasfinalisedtheCommissionhadnotbeenprovidedwiththisinformation.

14

78. TheinformationbeforemesuggeststhattheCommonwealthfirstconsideredplacingMr HEinalessrestrictiveformofdetentioninMay2011.TheDepartmentadvisesthat:

• Mr HE’scasewasreferredforconsiderationofcommunitydetentionon20May2011.Hewasassessedasnotmeetingtheguidelinestobeconsideredforcommunitydetentionon27 September2011;

• Mr HE’scasewasre-referredforconsiderationofcommunitydetentionon20March2012,when‘hewasassessedasnotmeetingtheguidelinestobeconsideredforcommunitydetention.…ThisconsiderationwasinlinewiththeMinister’sadviceof7February2012thathewillnotconsidercommunitydetentionorbridgingvisasforclientswhoarefacingcriminalcharges’;

• Mr HE’scasewasreferredforconsiderationundersection197ABguidelineson4October2012.10

79. Itappearsthatinatleastoneoftheseinstances,thedecisionnottoconsiderMr HEforcommunitydetentiononcehehadbeenchargedbytheAFPwasnotmadeonthebasisofanassessmentofMr HE’sindividualcircumstancesortheriskthathemayposetothecommunity;rather,theDepartmentwasactingonthebasisofadirectiongivenbythethenMinisterinrelationtoalldetaineeswithongoingcriminalproceedings.I considerthispracticeseparatelybelow.ItisalsoofsignificantconcernthatthefirsttimetheDepartmentreferredMr FE’scaseforconsiderationofcommunitydetentionwasinMay2011andanassessmentagainsttheguidelineswasnotcompleteduntilSeptember2011,20monthsafterhehadbeenplacedinimmigrationdetention.ThisdelayisinconsistentwiththeCommonwealth’sobligationtodetainMr HEintheleastrestrictivemannerpossible.

80. I findthattheDepartment’sfailuretoconsiderMr HE’sindividualcircumstancesandsuitabilityforlessrestrictiveformsofdetention(ifnecessarywithconditions),eitherinthe16monthsupuntilMay2011orinthe16monthperiodafterhewasgrantedbail,wasarbitraryandinconsistentwithhisrighttolibertyunderarticle9oftheICCPR.

7.2 Practice 1: Policy not to consider individuals who are facing criminal charges for community detention

81. I understandthaton7February2012thethenMinisteradvisedtheDepartmentthathewillnotconsiderindividualswhoarefacingcriminalchargesforcommunitydetentionorbridgingvisas.I amconcernedthatasaresultofthispolicytheindividualcircumstancesofdetaineesfacingcriminalchargesarenotbeingtakenintoaccountinassessingwhethercommunitybaseddetention(orsomeotherlessrestrictiveformofdetentionthandetentioninanimmigrationdetentionfacility)isappropriate,eveninsituationswherebailhasbeengranted.

82. TheUnitedNationsHumanRightsCommitteehasrecentlyreconsidereditsviewsonarticle9.11 It has highlightedthatdetentionofasylum-seekersbeyondabriefinitialperiodtorecordtheirclaimsanddetermineidentity(ifindoubt),wouldbearbitrary

absentparticularreasonsspecifictotheindividual,suchasindividualisedlikelihoodofabsconding,dangerofcrimesagainstothers,orriskofactsagainstnationalsecurity.Thedecisionmustconsiderrelevantfactorscase-by-case,andnotbebasedonamandatoryruleforabroadcategory;musttakeintoaccountlessinvasivemeansofachievingthesameends,suchasreportingobligations,sureties,orotherconditionstopreventabsconding;andmustbesubjecttoperiodicre-evaluationandjudicialreview.12

7 Article 9 of the ICCPR

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 15

83. I findthatthispolicyisapracticecontrarytoarticle9oftheICCPRinthatitresultsinongoingdetention,inimmigrationdetentionfacilities,ofindividualsfacingcriminalchargeswithoutadequateconsiderationof:

• theirindividualcircumstances;• theextenttowhichtheyposeanyparticularrisktotheAustraliancommunity;• theindividualisedlikelihoodofabsconding;or• theextenttowhichanysuchriskcouldbemitigated,throughsuchmeansasreportingobligationsorbailconditions.

8 Article 78.1 Act 1: Failure to detain in the least restrictive manner possible

and/or failure to consider less restrictive alternatives to closed immigration detention in circumstances of deteriorating mental health

84. MessrsHA,HCandHDappeartoclaimthattheadverseimpactofdetentionontheirmentalhealthamountstoabreachoftheirhumanrights.

85. Asstatedabove,therelevantquestionforthepurposesofarticle7oftheICCPRiswhetherthecomplainants’detentionhascausedalevelofmentalimpairmentsuchthatitamountstocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment.

(a) Mr HA

86. OnarrivalatChristmasIsland,Mr HAdisclosedahistoryoftortureandtrauma.FromJanuary2010,heaccessedIHMSMentalHealthforTortureandTraumacounsellingandothertherapy.

87. InAugust2011,theMentalHealthUnitatVIDCreferredMr HAtoSTARTTSforanassessmentandreportregardinghismentalhealthstate.Inherreportof26September2011,psychologistLarisaZilenkovmadeaprovisionaldiagnosisofpost-traumaticstressdisorder(PTSD),clinicaldepressionandanxiety.MsZilenkovnotedMr HA’straumaticexperiencesofimmigrationdetention,particularlywitnessingthesuicideoftwodetainees.ShealsonotedthatoneofhismaindifficultiesisbeingunabletofallasleepduetointrusivetraumaticmemoriesandtheanxietyassociatedwiththefearofhisforcedreturntoIran.

88. MsZilenkovformedtheviewthatMr HA’ssymptomsoftrauma,relatedtohisreportedpersecutionandtorture,‘havebeenfurtherexacerbatedbythefactthat[Mr HA]remainsinanenvironmentthatheperceivesaspunitiveandunsafe’.Sherecommendedtreatmenttostrengthencopingstrategies,includingpsycho-educationandpsycho-therapy,andstatedthat‘givenhissymptomshavebeenexacerbatedasaresultoftheextendeddurationofhisdetention,hewouldbenefitfrombeingreleasedintothecommunity…hiscontinueddetentionislikelytoincreasetheseverityofhissymptoms’.

89. Inlate2011,Mr HAexpressedsuicidalandself-harmideationandIHMSplacedhimonaPsychologicalSupportProgramonanongoingbasis.

16

90. DuetoMr HA’smentalhealthdeterioration,theMentalHealthUnitofVIDCreferredhimforafurthermentalhealthassessmentinFebruary2013.Inthereportdated7March2013,clinicalpsychologistS.MomartinfoundthatMr HA’sdepressivesymptomshaveremainedhighandthathismentalhealthisfrail.He/shenotedthat‘alengthydetentionwouldexacerbatehiscurrentcondition,renderinghimvulnerable,exposinghimtoemotionaldecline,receptivetodevelopingfurthersymptoms’.

91. ItisofsignificantconcerntomethattheDepartmentwasapprisedofthesepsychologicalassessmentsandapparentlydidnotbringthemtothethenMinister’sattentioninrelationtoaproposedalternativeplacement,asaresultoftheMinister’spolicyofnotconsideringindividualsfacingcriminalchargesforcommunitydetention.Thisreinforcesmyfindingwithregardtoabreachof Mr HA’srightsunderarticle9.

92. Inconsideringthismatterunderarticle7,I havehadparticularregardtothemostrecentfindingsofS.Momartin.Thatis,althoughMr HA’sPTSDscorehasremainedona‘highlevel’,indicatingthathismentalhealthproblemsstillcausehim‘considerablementalstress’,itwasnotaselevatedaspreviouslyreportedinlate2011.I alsonotethatS.MomartinrecordsMr HA’sfirmconfirmationthatat thetimehehadnosuicidalthoughtsorideation.Forthesereasons,althoughI acceptthatdetentionhashadseriousadverseeffectsonMr HA’smentalhealth,itdoesnotappearthathehassufferedsuchseverepsychologicalimpairmentthathisdetentionamountedtocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment.

93. I thereforefindthatthefailuretoconsiderlessrestrictivealternativestocloseddetentionforMr HAwasnotinconsistentwitharticle7.

(b) Mr HC

94. Mr HChasaccessedtheIHMSMentalHealthservicesfromearlyMarch2012,afterhewasgrantedbailandreturnedtoimmigrationdetentioninVIDC.Atapproximatelythistime,IHMSplacedhimonanongoingbasisintothePsychologicalSupportProgramatVIDC.

95. IHMSrecordsinrelationtoMr HC’smentalhealthexaminationassessmentsrevealthat:

• Mr HChasahistoryoftortureandtrauma,recountinganincidentofbeingarrested,strippedandbeatenovertheheadwithanironbarinKharizak,Iran;

• hehasbeeninvolvedinpastself-harmactivities,bycuttingthebackofhisneck;

• inMarch2012,hewasscheduledundertheMental Health Act 2007(NSW)andadmittedtoBankstownHospitalforpsychiatricassessment.Hewasdiagnosedwithaschizoaffectivedisorder,markedbyperceptualdisturbance,auditoryhallucinationsandvisualisations,andcommencedanti-psychoticmedication;

• hehaspoorsleepandnightmaresoftimespentinjail;

• hehasdevelopedmajordepressionandanxietyindetention;and

• hehasconsistentlydeniedsuicidalorself-harmthoughts.

96. TheIHMSmentalhealthrecordsindicatethatMr HC’sschizoaffectivedisorderwassomethingwhichhealsoexperiencedpriortohisdetentioninAustralia,ashehasreportedahistoryofsimilarhallucinationsduringhisearlyadulthoodinIran.

7 Article 9 of the ICCPR

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 17

97. I alsonoteapsychiatrist’sassessmentof6February2013,statingthatMr HC’spreviousmoodandpsychoticsymptomshaveimproved.

98. AlthoughI acceptthatdetentionhashadanegativeimpactonMr HCandhehasbeenaffectedbydepressionandanxietyduringhistimeinimmigrationdetentionandcriminalcustody,itdoesnotappearthathehassufferedsuchseverepsychologicalimpairmentthathisdetentionamountedtocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment.

99. I thereforefindthatthefailuretoconsiderlessrestrictivealternativestocloseddetentionforMr HCwasnotinconsistentwitharticle7.

(c) Mr HD

100. OnarrivalatChristmasIsland,Mr HDdisclosedahistoryoftortureandtrauma.Fromtimetotime,duringhisdetentionatVIDC,Mr HDaccessedIHMSMentalHealthforTortureandTraumacounselling.Hewasalsoprescribedmedicationtoassistwithdifficultiessleeping.

101. Inearly2012,theMentalHealthUnitatVIDCreferredMr HDtoSTARTTSforanassessmentandareportregardinghismentalhealth.DrAskovic’sreportof24June2012diagnosedMr HDwithPTSD,anxietyanddepression.DrAskovicformedtheviewthatMr HD’scurrentpsychologicaldifficultieswereaconsequenceoftheseriesoftraumaticeventshelivedthroughinhiscountryoforigin,duringhisjourneytoAustraliaandinthedetentioncentre.ThetraumaticeventstowhichMr HDreferredinthedetentionfacilitieswerehiswitnessingtwoofhisfellowdetaineescommittingsuicide.Hereportedthatthesememoriesaretriggeredwhenhepassesthelocationswheretheeventsoccurred.DrAskovicrecommendedsupportivecounsellingandpsychiatricassessmentandtreatmenttoassistwithMr HD’ssymptomsofdepressionandPTSD.DrAskovicalso‘highlyrecommendedtotransferMr HDtoanothersectionofthedetentioncentretoreducethetriggersheiscurrentlyexposedtoonadailybasis’.

102. InJuly2012,Mr HDrequestedamovetoHughescompoundatVIDC.ThismovewasapprovedinSeptember2012,howeverMr HDdecidednottoacceptthetransfer.ThereisnomaterialbeforemeastowhetherMr HD’srequesttomovetoHughescompoundwasinresponsetoDrAskovic’srecommendations.I invitedtheDepartmenttoprovidefurtherinformationonthispoint,however,atthetimethatmyNoticeofDecisionwasfinalisedtheCommissionhadnotbeenprovidedwiththisinformation.

103. Inanyevent,althoughI acceptthatMr HDwitnessedhighlytraumaticeventsduringhisdetentionandfoundhistimeindetentionverydistressing,itdoesnotappearthathehassufferedsuchseverepsychologicalimpairmentthathisdetentionamountedtocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment.

104. I thereforefindthatthefailuretoconsiderlessrestrictivealternativestocloseddetentionforMr HDwasnotinconsistentwitharticle7.

18

9 Opportunity to respond to the Commission’s preliminary view

105. On10March2014,theCommissionissuedtheDepartmentandthecomplainantswithitspreliminaryviewinrelationtothesecomplaints.Pursuanttosection27oftheAHRCAct,whereitappearstotheCommissionasaresultofaninquirythattherespondenthasengagedinanactorpracticethatisinconsistentwithorcontrarytoanyhumanright,theCommissionisrequiredtogivetherespondenta‘reasonableopportunity’tomakesubmissionsbeforetheCommissionreportstotheAttorney-General.TheCommissionrequestedthattheDepartmentprovideanysubmissionsby7April2014.

106. On19March2014,theCommissionreceivedanemailfromtheDepartmentrequestinganextensionforresponseuntil29April2014,‘giventhatthereare5casestoundertakeatonce.’Laterthatday,theCommissionrespondedtotheDepartmentstatingthatitwasagreeabletoanextensionuntiltheendofApril2014.

107. On29April2014,theCommissionreceivedanemailfromtheDepartmentstatingthatinrelationtoeachofthecomplaints‘responsesarecurrentlybeinglegallycleared,however,itisanticipatedthattheymaynotbefinaliseduntilendofMay2014’.Laterthatday,theCommissionrespondedtotheDepartmentstatingthatitwasagreeabletoanextensionuntiltheendofMay2014.

108. On30May2014,theCommissionreceivedanemailfromanofficeroftheDepartmentstating‘I regretthattheresponsesarenotyetfinalised,however,theyareprogressing.I seekfurthertimetocompletethedepartment’scommentsonthesefivecasesandwouldbegratefulifyouwouldagreetoafinalisationdateofTuesday30June2014.’

109. On5June2014,I instructedanofficeroftheCommissiontoindicatetotheDepartmentthatthiswasafinaldeadlineandanyresponsereceivedafter30June2014maynotbetakenintoaccountbytheCommission.I considerthataperiodofmorethanthreeandahalfmonthsfortheDepartmenttoprovidearesponsetomypreliminaryviewsinthismatterismorethana‘reasonableopportunity’.

110. Bythefinaldeadline,noresponsehadbeenreceivedtomypreliminaryview.

10 Recommendations10.1 Power to make recommendations111. Where,afterconductinganinquiry,theCommissionfindsthatanactorpracticeengagedinbya

respondentisinconsistentwithorcontrarytoanyhumanright,theCommissionisrequiredtoservenoticeontherespondentsettingoutitsfindingsandreasonsforthosefindings.13TheCommissionmayincludeinthenoticeanyrecommendationforpreventingarepetitionoftheactor acontinuationofthepractice.14

112. TheCommissionmayalsorecommend:

• thepaymentofcompensationto,orinrespectof,apersonwhohassufferedlossordamage;and

• thetakingofotheractiontoremedyorreducethelossordamagesufferedbyaperson.15

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 19

10.2 Recommendation that alternatives to closed detention be considered

113. Mr HBrequestedthatI recommendthathebereleasedintocommunitydetentionorbegrantedabridgingvisa.HenotedthatheisnowmarriedtoanAustraliancitizenandthatseparationfromhiswifeisputtingconsiderablestrainoneachofthemandtheirrelationship.

114. MessrsHA,HB,HCandHDhaveeitheralreadyservedthecustodialperiodsoftheirrespectivesentencesorarenearingtheendthecustodialperiod.Aseachofthemcompletesthenon-custodialperiodoftheirsentence,I recommendthattheDepartmentrefertheircasestotheMinistersohemayconsiderexercisinghispowerstograntabridgingvisaorreleaseintocommunitydetention.

115. I furtherrecommendthattheDepartmentamenditspoliciesinthewaysoutlinedbelow.

10.3 Recommended policy changes116. I recommendthattheMinisteradvisetheDepartmentthathewillconsiderindividualsforcommunity

detentionwhoarepersonsofinteresttotheAFPorfacingcriminalcharges.Thiswillallowtheindividualcircumstancesofdetaineestobetakenintoaccountinassessingwhethercommunitybaseddetention(orsomeotherlessrestrictiveformofdetentionthandetentioninanimmigrationdetentionfacility)isappropriate.

117. Theneedtodetaininanimmigrationdetentionfacilityshouldbeassessedonacase-by-casebasistakingintoconsiderationindividualcircumstances.Thatassessmentshouldbeconductedwhenapersonistakenintoimmigrationdetentionorassoonaspossiblethereafter.ApersonshouldonlybeheldinanimmigrationdetentionfacilityiftheyposeaflightriskorareassessedasposinganunacceptablerisktotheAustraliancommunityandthatriskcannotbemitigatedinalessrestrictiveway.Otherwise,theyshouldbepermittedtoresideinthecommunitywhiletheirimmigrationstatusisresolved.

118. TheDepartmentshouldconductregularreviewsofdetentionforallpeopleinimmigrationdetentionfacilities.Thisreviewshouldfocusonwhethercontinueddetentioninanimmigrationdetentionfacilityisnecessary,reasonableandproportionateineachindividual’sspecificcircumstances.

119. TheguidelinesrelatingtotheMinister’sresidencedeterminationpowershouldbeamendedtoprovidethatunlesstheDepartmentissatisfiedthatapersoninanimmigrationdetentionfacilityisaflightrisk,orposesanunacceptablerisktotheAustraliancommunitywhichcannotbeaddressedthroughtheimpositionofconditionsoncommunitydetention,theDepartmentshouldreferallpersonstotheMinisterforconsiderationofmakingaresidencedetermination.TheDepartmentshouldmakethereferralassoonaspracticableandinnocircumstanceslaterthan90daysaftertheindividualisplacedinanimmigrationdetentionfacility.

10.4 Consideration of compensation120. Thereisnojudicialguidancedealingwiththeassessmentofrecommendationsforfinancial

compensationforbreachesofhumanrightsundertheAHRCAct.

121. However,inconsideringtheassessmentofarecommendationforcompensationundersection35oftheAHRCAct(relatingtodiscriminationmattersunderPartII,Division4oftheAHRCAct),theFederalCourthasindicatedthattortprinciplesfortheassessmentofdamagesshouldbeapplied.

20

122. I amoftheviewthatthisistheappropriateapproachtotaketothepresentmatter.Forthisreason,so farasispossibleinthecaseofarecommendationforcompensation,theobjectshouldbetoplacetheinjuredpartyinthesamepositionasifthewronghadnotoccurred.

123. Thetortoffalseimprisonmentisamorelimitedactionthananactionforbreachofarticle9(1).Thisisbecauseanactionforfalseimprisonmentcannotsucceedwherethereisalawfuljustificationforthedetention,whereasabreachofarticle9(1)willbemadeoutwhereitcanbeestablishedthatthedetentionwasarbitraryirrespectiveoflegality.

124. Notwithstandingthisimportantdistinction,thedamagesawardedinfalseimprisonmentprovideanappropriateguidefortheawardofcompensationforabreachofarticle9(1).Thisisbecausethedamagesthatareavailableinfalseimprisonmentmattersprovideanindicationofhowthecourtshaveconsidereditappropriatetocompensateforlossofliberty.

125. Theprincipalheadsofdamageforatortofthisnatureareinjurytoliberty(thelossoffreedomconsideredprimarilyfromanon-pecuniarystandpoint)andinjurytofeelings(theindignity,mentalsuffering,disgraceandhumiliation,withanyattendantlossofsocialstatus).16

126. IntherecentcaseofFernando v Commonwealth of Australia (No 5),17SiopisJconsideredthejudicialguidanceavailableonthequantumofdamagesforlossoflibertyforalongperiodarisingfromwrongfulimprisonment.SiopisJreferredtothecaseofNye v State of New South Wales:18

…theNye caseisusefulinonerespect,namely,thatthecourtwasrequiredtoconsiderthequantumofdamagestobeawardedtoMr Nyeinrespectofhislossoflibertyforaperiodofsome16monthswhichhespentinLongBayGaol.Indoingso,consistentlywiththeapproachrecognizedbySpigelmanCJinRuddock (NSWCA),theCourtdidnotassessdamagesbyapplicationofadailyrate,butawardedMr Nyethesumof$100,000ingeneraldamages.ItisalsorelevanttoobservethatinNye,thecourtreferredtothefactthatforaperiodoftimeduringhisdetentioninLongBayGaol,Mr Nyefearedforhislifeatthehandsofotherinmatesofthatgaol.19

127. SiopisJnotedthatfurtherguidanceonthequantumofdamagesforlossoflibertyforalongperiodarisingfromwrongfulimprisonmentcanbeobtainedfromthecaseofRuddock(NSWCA).20 In that case,atfirstinstance,21theNewSouthWalesDistrictCourtawardedtheplaintiff,Mr Taylor,thesumof$116,000indamagesinrespectofwrongfulimprisonment,consequentuponhisdetentionfollowingthecancellationofhispermanentresidencyvisaoncharactergrounds.

128. Mr Taylorwasdetainedfortwoseparateperiods.Thefirstwasfor161daysandthesecondwasfor155days.Inthatcase,becauseMr Taylor’sconvictionswereinrelationtosexualoffencesagainstchildren,Mr Taylorwasdetainedinastateprisonundera‘strictprotection’regimeandnotinanimmigrationdetentioncentre.ThedetentionregimetowhichMr Taylorwassubjectedwasdescribedasa‘particularlyharshone’.

129. TheCourtalsotookintoaccountthefactthatMr Taylorhadalongcriminalrecordandthatthiswasnothisfirstexperienceofalossofliberty.Hewasalsoconsideredtobeapersonoflowreputewhowouldnothavefeltthedisgraceandhumiliationexperiencedbyapersonofgoodcharacterinsimilarcircumstances.22

130. Onappeal,theNewSouthWalesCourtofAppealconsideredthattheawardwaslowbutintheacceptablerange.TheCourtnotedthat‘asthetermofimprisonmentextends,theeffectuponthepersonfalselyimprisoneddoesprogressivelydiminish’.23

10 Recommendations

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 21

131. AlthoughinFernando v Commonwealth of Australia (No 5),SiopisJultimatelyacceptedtheCommonwealth’sargumentthatMr Fernandowasonlyentitledtonominaldamages,24hisHonourconsideredthesumofgeneraldamageshewouldhaveawardedinrespectofMr Fernando’sclaimifhisfindingsinrespectoftheCommonwealth’sargumentonnominaldamageswerewrong.Mr Fernandowaswrongfullyimprisonedfor1,203daysinanimmigrationdetentioncentre.SiopisJacceptedMr Fernando’sevidencethathesufferedanxietyandstressduringhisdetentionand,also,thathewastreatedfordepressionduringandafterhisdetentionandtookthesefactorsintoaccountinassessingthequantumofdamages.HisHonouralsonotedthatMr Fernando’sevidencedidnotsuggestthatinimmigrationdetentionhewassubjectedtotheharsh‘strictprotection’regimetowhichMr Taylorwassubjectedinastateprison,northatMr FernandofearedforhislifeatthehandsofinmatesinthesamewaythatMr NyedidwhilehewasdetainedatLongBayGaol.Takingallofthesefactorsintoaccount,SiopisJstatedthathewouldhaveawardedMr Fernandothesumof$265,000inrespectofhis1,203daysindetention.25

10.5 Recommendation that compensation be paid132. I havefoundthattheDepartment’sfailuretoconsiderthecomplainants’individualcircumstancesand

suitabilityforlessrestrictiveformsofdetention(ifnecessary,withconditions),intheperiodpriortotheApril2011riotsorintheperiodafterbeinggrantedbail,wasarbitraryandinconsistentwiththeirrighttolibertyunderarticle9oftheICCPR.

133. IndeterminingtheappropriateamountofcompensationforMr HA,I havetakenintoaccountthepsychologicalassessmentsdiscussedatparagraphs87to90ofthisReportandthefactthathissymptomsoftraumahavebeenexacerbatedasaresultoftheprolongeddurationofhisdetention.

134. IndeterminingtheappropriateamountofcompensationforMr HCI havetakenintoaccounthismentalhealthexaminationassessments,whichrevealthathehasdevelopedmajordepressionandanxietyindetention.

135. IndeterminingtheappropriateamountofcompensationforMr HD,I havetakenintoaccountthathehasbeendiagnosedindetentionwithPTSD,anxietyanddepression.

136. I havealsoconsideredtheperiodsinwhichI havefoundthecomplainants’detentiontobearbitrary:

• Mr HA:approximately2yearsand8months;• Mr HB:approximately2yearsand8months;• Mr HC:approximately2yearsand4months;• Mr HD:approximately2yearsand8months;and• Mr HE:approximately2yearsand8months.

137. Assessingcompensationinsuchcircumstancesisdifficultandrequiresadegreeofjudgment.Takingintoaccounttheguidanceprovidedbythedecisionsreferredtoabove,I recommendthattheCommonwealthpaytoeachofthecomplainantsthefollowingamountsbywayofcompensation:

• Mr HA:$190,000• Mr HB:$175,000• Mr HC:$180,000• Mr HD:$190,000• Mr HE:$175,000

22

11 The Commonwealth’s response to my findings and recommendations

138. On12August2014,I providedaNoticetotheMinisterandtheDepartmentundersection29(2)(a)oftheAHRCActsettingoutmyfindingsandrecommendationsinrelationtothiscomplaint.

139. Byletterdated9September2014,theDepartmentprovidedaresponsetomyfindingsandrecommendations:

Findings

ThedepartmentnotesPresidentTriggs’findingsthat:

‘… the Department’s failure to consider the complainants’ individual circumstances and suitability for less restrictive forms of detention (if necessary, with conditions) was arbitrary and inconsistent with their right to liberty under article 9 of the ICCPR.’

‘the practice of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Minister) that he would not consider individuals who are facing criminal charges for community detention was contrary to article 9(1) of the ICCPR.’

Thedepartmentnotestheabovefindings.

WeregrettheinabilityofthedepartmenttoprovidetherequestedresponsestoPresidentTriggs’preliminaryfindingswithintheagreedtimeframes.

Recommendations

Recommendation that alternatives to closed detention be considered

Recommendation 1

‘Messrs HA, HB, HC and HD… I recommend that the Department refer their cases to the Minister so he may consider exercising his powers to grant a bridging visa or release into community detention’

On7July2014,thedepartmentlodgedasubmissionwiththeMinisteronbehalfofMr HD,fortheMinistertoconsiderexercisinghisnon-delegable,non-compellableauthorityto:

• GrantMr HDaBridgingEvisa(BVE)undersection195AoftheMigration Act 1958 (the Act);or,

• Makearesidencedeterminationundersection197ABoftheAct,allowingMr HDtobe accommodatedincommunitydetention,

ifheconsiderseitheroptiontobeinthepublicinterest.

On30July2014,thedepartmentalsolodgedsubmissionswiththeMinisteronbehalfofMessrsHA,HBandHC,fortheMinistertoconsiderexercisinghisnon-compellable,non-delegableauthoritytomakeresidencedeterminationsundersection197ABoftheActtoallowthesementoresideincommunitydetention,ifheconsidersittobeinthepublicinterest.

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 23

Recommended policy changes

Recommendation 2

‘I recommend that the Minister advise the department that he will consider individuals for community detention who are persons of interest to the AFP or facing criminal charges. This will allow the individual circumstances of detainees to be taken into account in assessing whether community based detention (or some other less restrictive form of detention than detention in an immigration detention facility) is appropriate.’

ThedepartmentnotesthisrecommendationandwilldirectPresidentTriggs’ReporttotheMinisterforhisconsideration.

Recommendation 3

‘The need to detain in an immigration detention facility should be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration individual circumstances. That assessment should be conducted when a person is taken into immigration detention or as soon as possible thereafter. A person should only be held in an immigration detention facility if they pose a flight risk or are assessed as posing an unacceptable risk to the Australian community and that risk cannot be mitigated in a less restrictive way. Otherwise, they should be permitted to reside in the community while their immigration status is resolved.’

Thedepartmentnotesthisrecommendation.

…

Immigrationdetentionsupportsawell-managedmigrationsystemandisusedtoenabletheidentificationandmanagementofpotentialriskstotheAustraliancommunity,includingnationalsecurity,healthandcharacterrisks.WhenaUNC[unlawfulnon-citizen]isdetainedsomeconsiderationisgiventotheirpersonalcircumstancesindeterminingwheretheywillbeaccommodatedwithintheimmigrationdetentionnetwork.Forexample,inthecaseofIllegalMaritimeArrivals(IMAs)informationrelatingtohealth,age,familycompositionandculturalorreligiousconsiderationsisobtainedinarrivalinterviewsandthroughinitialhealthscreening.Thisinformationisusedtohelpdeterminewhatistheappropriateinitialplacementgiventhedetainee’shealthandwelfareneeds.

…

Adetainee’songoingplacementisformallyreviewedbytheirassignedcasemanagerthroughregularindividualcaseandplacementreviews.Theimmigrationcasesofalldetaineesarestreamedintothecasemanagementservice(withtheexceptionofthoseeligibleforremovalwithin28daysofbeingdetained).Casemanagersarerequiredtocomprehensivelyassessadetainee’sindividualcircumstanceswithin14daysofdetention,andthenreviewchangestothesecircumstanceseverymonthataminimum.Thisreviewincludesconsiderationofwhetherthedetainee’shealthandwelfareneedscancontinuetobeadequatelymetinthefacilitywheretheyareaccommodated.Thecasemanagerisinformedoftheseneedsthroughregularcommunicationwiththedetainee,departmentalanddetentionandhealthserviceproviderstaff.Detaineesmayalsorequestfortheirdetentionplacementtobereviewed.

Whereacasemanageridentifiesvulnerabilitieswhichmayindicatetheongoingplacementofadetaineewithinheldimmigrationdetentionmaynolongerbeappropriate,theycanreferthatcaseforconsiderationagainstthesection195A(BridgingEvisa)or197AB(residencedetermination)Ministerialinterventionguidelines.

…

24

Recommendation 4

‘The department should consider regular reviews of detention for all people in immigration detention facilities. This review should focus on whether continued detention in an immigration detention facility is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in each individual’s specific circumstances.’

Section196oftheActrequiresthatanunlawfulnon-citizenmustbedetaineduntilremovedfromAustralia,transferredtoaRegionalProcessingCountry,deportedorgrantedavisa.Theimmigrationcasesofalldetaineesarestreamedintothecasemanagementservice(withtheexceptionofthoseeligibleforremovalwithin28daysofbeingdetained.)

Thecasemanager’sroleistoensurethatanimmigrationoutcomeisreachedinatimely,fairandreasonablemanner.Thecasesofindividualdetaineesareassignedtocasemanagersonceinitialscreeningandinductionprocessesarecompleted–thisincludesinitialhealthandwelfareassessments.Asnotedabove,detaineesmeetwiththeircasemanagersregularlyforcaseandplacementreviews.

TheMinisterialinterventionguidelinessetoutthecircumstancesunderwhichadetaineecan bereferredtotheMinisterforconsiderationofaBridgingEvisa(BE)grantoraresidencedetermination(communitydetention,CD)undersection195Aor197ABrespectively.A detainee’sindividualcircumstancesareconsideredwhenmakinganassessmentoftheircase againsttheMinisterialinterventionguidelines.

Recommendation 5

‘The guidelines relating to the Minister’s residence determination power should be amended to provide that unless the department is satisfied that a person in an immigration detention facility is a flight risk, or poses an unacceptable risk to the Australian community… the department should refer all persons to the Minister for consideration of making a residence determination. The department should make a referral as soon as practicable and in no circumstances later than 90 days after the individual is placed in an immigration detention facility’.

ThedepartmentnotesthisrecommendationandwilldirectPresidentTriggs’ReporttotheMinisterforhisconsideration.

Consideration of compensation

Recommendation 6

‘I recommend that the department pay financial compensation to each of the complainants, in the following amounts:

• Mr HA: $190 000• Mr HB: $175 000• Mr HC: $180 000• Mr HD: $190 000• Mr HE: $175 000’

Thedepartmentdoesnotacceptthisrecommendation.

11 The Commonwealth’s response to my findings and recommendations

HA, HB, HC, HD and HE v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2014] AusHRC 87 • 25

TheCommonwealthmaintainsitspositionthatthecomplainants’immigrationdetentionwasauthorisedundersection189(3)andsection189(1)oftheActandcarriedoutinaccordancewithapplicablepolicyandprocedure.GiventheirdetentionwasrequiredbyAustralianmigrationlawforthepurposeofensuringtheintegrityofAustralia’smigrationframeworkandreviewedonaregularbasisinanindividualisedmanner,theirdetentionwasnotarbitrarywithinthemeaningofarticle9(1)oftheInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

…thedepartmentadvisesthatnofurtheractionwillbetakeninrelationtothisrecommendation.

140. I reportaccordinglytotheAttorney-General.

GillianTriggs PresidentAustralianHumanRightsCommission

September2014

1 FollowingtheHighCourt’srulinginPlaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth;Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth (2010)243CLR319,Mr HEwasgrantedasecondIMR.

2 SeeSecretary, Department of Defence v HREOC, Burgess & Ors(1997)78FCR208.3 UNHRC,GeneralComment8(1982)Right to liberty and security of persons (Article 9).SeealsoA v Australia,Communication

No.560/1993,UNDocCCPR/C/59/D/560/1993(1997);C v Australia,CommunicationNo.900/1999,UNDocCCPR/C/76/D/900/1999(2002);Baban v Australia,CommunicationNo.1014/2001,UNDocCCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001(2003).

4 UNHRC,GeneralComment31(2004)at[6].SeealsoJoseph,SchultzandCastan‘TheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsCases,MaterialsandCommentary’(2nded,2004)p308,at[11.10].

5 Manga v Attorney-General [2000]2NZLR65at[40]-[42],(HammondJ).SeealsotheviewsoftheUNHRCinVan Alphen v The Netherlands,CommunicationNo.305/1988,UNDocCCPR/C/39/D/305/1988(1990);A v Australia,CommunicationNo.560/1993,UNDocCCPR/C/59/D/560/1993(1997); Spakmo v Norway,CommunicationNo.631/1995,UNDocCCPR/C/67/D/631/1995(1999).

6 A v Australia,CommunicationNo.900/1993,UNDocCCPR/C/76/D/900/1993(1997)(thefactthattheauthormayabscondifreleasedintothecommunitywithnotsufficientreasontojustifyholdingtheauthorinimmigrationdetentionforfouryears); C v Australia,CommunicationNo.900/1999,UNDocCCPR/C/76/D/900/1999(2002).

7 C v Australia,CommunicationNo.900of1999,UNDocCCPR/C/76/D/900/1999(2002);Shams & Ors v Australia,CommunicationNo.1255of2004,UNDocCCPR/C/90/D/1255/2004(2007);Baban v Australia,CommunicationNo.1014of2001,UNDocCCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001(2003);D and E v Australia,CommunicationNo.1050of2002,UNDocCCPR/C/87/D/1050/2002(2006).

8 C v Australia CommunicationNo.900/1999,UNDocCCPR/C/76/D/900/1999(2002).9 Migration Act 1958(Cth)s5.10 AtthetimetheDepartmentprovideditsresponseinDecember2012,thisassessmentremainedongoing.11 SeeUNHumanRightsCommittee,DraftGeneralComment35(2013).12 UNHumanRightsCommittee,DraftGeneralComment35(2013)at[18].13 Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986(Cth)(AHRCAct)s29(2)(a).14 AHRCActs29(2)(b).15 AHRCActs29(2)(c).

26

16 Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome(1972)AC1027,1124;Spautz v Butterworth & Anor(1996)41NSWLR1(ClarkeJA);Vignoli v Sydney Harbour Casino[1999]NSWSC1113(22November1999),[87].

17 [2013]FCA901.18 [2003]NSWSC1212.19 [2013]FCA901at[121].20 Ruddock v Taylor (2003)58NSWLR269.21 Taylor v Ruddock(unreported,18December2002,NSWDistrictCourt(MurrellDCJ)).22 Taylor v Ruddock(unreported,18December2002,NSWDistrictCourt(MurrellDCJ))[140].23 Ruddock v Taylor[2003]58NSWLR269,279.24 Ruddock v Taylor[2003]58NSWLR269,279.25 ThecourtawardednominaldamagesofonedollarfortheunlawfuldetentionofMr Fernandobecauseasanon-citizen,oncehe

committedaseriouscrime,hewasalwaysliabletohavehisvisacancelled:Fernando v Commonwealth of Australia(No5)[2013]FCA901[98]-[99].

FurtherInformationAustralian Human Rights Commission

Level 3, 175 Pitt StreetSYDNEY NSW 2000

GPO Box 5218SYDNEY NSW 2001Telephone: (02) 9284 9600

Complaints Infoline: 1300 656 419General enquiries and publications: 1300 369 711TTY: 1800 620 241Fax: (02) 9284 9611Website: www.humanrights.gov.au

For detailed and up to date information about the Australian Human Rights Commission visit our website at: www.humanrights.gov.au

To order more publications from the Australian Human Rights Commission download a Publication Order Form at: www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/index.html or call: (02) 9284 9600 fax: (02) 9284 9611 or email: publications@humanrights.gov.au

Australian Human Rights Commissionwww.humanrights.gov.au