AKW22 v Commonwealth of Australia

The case of AKW22 v Commonwealth of Australia involved the applicant, AKW22, who sought habeas corpus to prevent his removal from Australia. The matter was brought before the court for an oral interlocutory application to restrain his removal while the habeas corpus application was being resolved. The court was required to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried and if the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The central legal issues were whether there was a substantial likelihood that the applicant's removal would result in a breach of his rights and if the balance of convenience supported granting the injunction. The court examined the merits of the habeas corpus application and the potential consequences of granting or refusing the injunction. After thorough consideration, the court concluded that there was no serious question to be tried, and the balance of convenience did not favour the applicant.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction. The applicant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application, which were to be assessed if not agreed upon. The court's decision was grounded in the lack of a substantial likelihood of success in the habeas corpus application and the absence of a compelling argument that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant. The case underscores the stringent criteria required to obtain an interlocutory injunction in such matters.