Behrooz v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] HCA 36

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,
McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ

MAHRAN BEHROOZ  APPELLANT

AND

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND

INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ORS  RESPONDENTS

Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] HCA 36

6 August 2004
A255/2003

ORDER

Appeal dismissed.  Appellant to pay costs of first respondent.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia

Representation:

J W K Burnside QC with J P Manetta for the appellant (instructed by Jeremy Moore & Associates)

D M J Bennett QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, with M A Perry for the first and second respondents (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

No appearance for the third and fourth respondents

Intervener

D S Mortimer SC with J K Kirk intervening on behalf of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (instructed by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission)

Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Immigration – Appellant charged with offence of escape by unlawful non-citizen from immigration detention contrary to s 197A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Appellant sought issue of witness summonses pursuant to Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) seeking production of documentary material relating to conditions and complaints about conditions at detention centre – Whether material sought by witness summonses could have assisted appellant in his defence – Whether, by reason of conditions at detention centre, it could be said that appellant did not escape from "immigration detention" within the meaning of the offence.

Immigration – Constitutional law (Cth) – Whether detention under harsh or inhumane conditions is authorised by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Whether Migration Act 1958 (Cth) only authorises detention under conditions that are reasonably capable of being seen as necessary for migration control purposes – Whether detention in harsher conditions would be punitive and therefore could not validly be authorised except as a consequence of the exercise of the judicial power under Ch III of the Constitution – Distinction between lawful authority to detain and means by which detention is achieved and enforced – Relevance of potential availability of other civil, criminal or administrative remedies to the construction of the statutory offence – Relevance of Constitutional principles and international law to construction of statutory offence.

Constitutional law (Cth) – Construction of the Constitution – Whether international law applicable to interpretation of the Constitution.

Words and phrases – "detain", "detainee", "immigration detention".

Constitution, Ch III.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 3A, 5, 189, 196, 197A, 273.
Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA), s 20.

1. GLEESON CJ. The question in this appeal concerns the relevance, to a charge of escaping from immigration detention contrary to s 197A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), of information about the general conditions at the place of detention from which the alleged offender escaped. This is an issue of law, and was argued as such by the parties to the appeal. It comes down to a question of construction of s 197A, understood in the light of other provisions of the Act, and of the Constitution.

2. The forensic context in which the question arises is as follows. The Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre ("the detention centre") was established as an immigration detention centre pursuant to s 273 of the Act. The appellant[1] was detained at the detention centre as an unlawful non-citizen pursuant to the obligation imposed by s 189 of the Act. He allegedly escaped. He was charged with a contravention of s 197A. The maximum penalty for such an offence is imprisonment for five years. The charge came before a South Australian magistrate. There was some debate in the Supreme Court of South Australia as to whether the proceedings were summary, or by way of committal preparatory to indictment. It is not suggested that, for present purposes, anything turns on that. The appellant was represented by senior counsel, as he has been at all times since. The appellant's lawyers sought, and obtained, the issue of witness summonses pursuant to the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA). Those summonses sought the production of extensive documentary material relating to conditions at the detention centre. The first and second respondents made an application to the magistrate to have the summonses set aside. There were two grounds for the application. One was that, by reason of their form and content, and the volume of material they sought, the summonses were oppressive[2].  The other was that the information sought was irrelevant, and therefore the issue of the summonses had no legitimate forensic purpose[3] or, to express the point in terms of ss 3 and 20 of the Magistrates Court Act, the material of which they required production was not and could not be of evidentiary value[4].  The magistrate dismissed the application.  There was an appeal to the Supreme Court of South Australia.  The appeal was upheld at first instance by Gray J, who accepted the second of the two arguments stated above.  As to the first, relating to oppression, he would have declined to interfere with the magistrate's discretion.  For the reasons that follow, there is no occasion to pursue that aspect of the matter.  Gray J allowed the appeal, and set aside the summonses.  The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Lander and Besanko JJ, Bleby J dissenting), refused leave to appeal.

   [1]When this matter was listed for hearing there were two other named appellants.  The Court was informed that they have been removed from Australia, and the criminal charges against them dropped.  At the hearing, the Court ordered that their grant of special leave to appeal be rescinded.  The record has been amended accordingly.

   [2]Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564.

   [3]R v Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14.

   [4]Carter v Hayes (1994) 61 SASR 451.

3. The legal basis upon which the Supreme Court of South Australia acted in setting aside the summonses is well established.  It was expressed by Bigham J in R v Baines[5], a criminal case in which there was an application to set aside subpoenas to testify on the ground that they were not issued for a legitimate forensic purpose, as follows:

   "But the Court has to inquire whether its process has been issued against [the potential witnesses] with the object and expectation on reasonable grounds of obtaining from them evidence which can be relevant."

   [5][1909] 1 KB 258 at 261.

4. In the present case, the nature of the information sought to be obtained by the issue of the summonses appears from a reading of the summonses, and was elaborated in argument. It was information concerning the conditions at the detention centre at or about the time of the appellant's escape. The potential relevance of that information was said to be that it would, or might, disclose that the conditions of detention of the appellant were such that the detention was punitive, that it was not a form of detention authorised by the Act, and that, therefore, escape from such detention did not contravene s 197A. In the appellant's written submissions in this Court, the relevance was stated as follows (referring to all appellants):

   "In defence of the charges, the appellants say that the conditions at Woomera, in their harshness, go beyond anything that could reasonably be regarded as necessary for migration purposes.  They say, therefore, that their detention at Woomera was not valid 'immigration detention' and escaping from it could not constitute escape from immigration detention."

5. Such a defence must be understood in the light of the terms of the Act. It is accepted by the appellant, for the purposes of the argument, that he is an unlawful non-citizen. It is accepted that he was detained at the detention centre. It is accepted that the detention centre was established as such pursuant to s 273 of the Act. It is accepted, for the purposes of the argument, that the appellant escaped from the detention centre.

6. Section 197A provides:

   "A detainee must not escape from immigration detention."

7. Section 5 defines "detain" to mean to take, keep, or cause to be kept, in immigration detention. The word "detainee" takes its meaning from that definition. Section 5 defines "immigration detention" relevantly, to mean being held in a detention centre established under the Act. It is clear that the appellant was being held in such a detention centre. The conditions under which he was being held do not form part of the statutory concept of "immigration detention".

8. As was noted above, the proposed defence, to which the information sought is said to be relevant, must turn upon the meaning of s 197A, read in the light of s 5, and also in the light of s 3A of the Act, which limits its application to that which is constitutionally valid. The argument for the appellant amounts to the proposition that, by reason of conditions at the detention centre, it is, or may be, possible to conclude that the appellant was not in immigration detention within the meaning of s 197A, and, therefore, did not escape from immigration detention.

9. It is important to note what is not in issue. In order to establish a defence to the charge against him, it is not sufficient for the appellant to demonstrate, if he can, that conditions at the detention centre were such as to give the inmates a cause of action for damages, or a right to declaratory or injunctive relief, or a claim to some remedy in administrative law. (The potential availability of relief of that kind cannot be brushed aside, conveniently, as a fantasy. The appellant has, at every stage of this litigation, been represented by senior counsel.) The appellant seeks to demonstrate that, by reason of the conditions at the detention centre, he, and presumably all the other inmates, had the right to leave. He seeks to demonstrate that escaping from the detention centre was not prohibited by s 197A.

10. There is a possible ambiguity in the expression "unlawful detention".  It may refer to a case where one person has no right to detain another; the person detained has a right to be free.  It could also be used to refer to a case in which the detention is authorised by law, but the conditions under which the detention is taking place are in some respects contrary to law.  In the second case, the detainee may be entitled to complain, and may have legal remedies, but it does not follow that he or she is entitled to an order of release from custody, much less that he or she is entitled, in an exercise of self-help, to escape.  The argument for the appellant appears to involve an intermediate position:  that, while, as an unlawful non-citizen, his detention was required ("mandatory"), conditions as harsh as those at the detention centre were unlawful; and that, by reason of those conditions, what was involved at the detention centre was not "immigration detention".

11. There is nothing novel about courts having to deal with a claim by a prisoner, or someone subjected to a form of detention authorised by law, that the conditions of custody are harsh, oppressive, or even intolerable.  In R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison; Ex parte Hague[6], Lord Bridge of Harwich said:

    "I sympathise entirely with the view that the person lawfully held in custody who is subjected to intolerable conditions ought not to be left without a remedy against his custodian, but the proposition that the conditions of detention may render the detention itself unlawful raises formidable difficulties.  If the proposition be sound, the corollary must be that when the conditions of detention deteriorate to the point of intolerability, the detainee is entitled immediately to go free.  It is impossible, I think, to define with any precision what would amount to intolerable conditions for this purpose ...

    The logical solution to the problem, I believe, is that if the conditions of an otherwise lawful detention are truly intolerable, the law ought to be capable of providing a remedy directly related to those conditions without characterising the fact of the detention itself as unlawful."

    [6][1992] 1 AC 58 at 165.

12. The decision of the House of Lords in that case was applied by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in 1995 in Prisoners A-XX Inclusive v State of New South Wales[7], where a group of inmates of New South Wales prisons unsuccessfully claimed habeas corpus, contending that the failure to provide them with condoms exposed them to a risk of life-threatening illness.  The Court of Appeal also considered Canadian and United States authority on the question.

    [7](1995) 38 NSWLR 622.

13. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Bell v Wolfish[8], noted that there had been a series of cases before that Court involving constitutional challenges to prison conditions or practices.  That case concerned prisoners held in custody pending trial.  Various conditions of their confinement were said to be punitive, and therefore unconstitutional.  Speaking for the majority, Rehnquist J made the point that, by hypothesis, a person complaining of conditions of confinement is being confined against his or her will:  a form of treatment which, in itself, would be described, in a colloquial sense, as punitive.  He said:

    "Not every disability imposed during pretrial detention amounts to 'punishment' in the constitutional sense, however.  Once the Government has exercised its conceded authority to detain a person pending trial, it obviously is entitled to employ devices that are calculated to effectuate this detention.  Traditionally, this has meant confinement in a facility which, no matter how modern or how antiquated, results in restricting the movement of a detainee in a manner in which he would not be restricted if he simply were free to walk the streets pending trial.  Whether it be called a jail, or prison, or a custodial center, the purpose of the facility is to detain.  Loss of freedom of choice and privacy are inherent incidents of confinement in such a facility.  And the fact that such detention interferes with the detainee's understandable desire to live as comfortably as possible and with as little restraint as possible during confinement does not convert the conditions or restrictions of detention into 'punishment'."

    [8]441 US 520 at 537 (1979).

14. It is one thing to challenge the lawfulness of conditions of confinement, or of practices adopted by those in charge of prisons; it is another thing to assert a right to be freed by court order; and it is another thing again to assert a right to escape.

15. One closely confined area in which the law has accepted a limited form of right to escape concerns the common law principle of necessity.  In the Victorian case of R v Loughnan[9], and the New South Wales case of Rogers[10], consideration was given to the principles according to which a person, confronted in prison with some peril involving a threat to life or safety, may lawfully take steps, proportionate to the danger, to avoid the threat.  Such steps do not ordinarily involve remaining at large in the community for an indefinite period.  Thus, for example, there are United States authorities which make it a condition of pleading necessity as an excuse for escaping from prison that the prisoner, after escape, must report immediately to the proper authorities when he has attained a position of safety from the immediate threat[11].  The Supreme Court of Victoria, in Loughnan, said this was a matter of evidentiary significance, rather than a legal condition[12].  In Southwark London Borough Council v Williams[13], Edmund Davies LJ, discussing the defence of necessity, pointed out that "the law regards with the deepest suspicion any remedies of self-help, and permits those remedies to be resorted to only in very special circumstances".  In the present case, Gray J recorded that there was no suggestion that the appellant was proposing to advance a defence of necessity, and it was not contended that he was compelled to escape to avoid some peril.  Where a situation of necessity arises, it may justify action taken by a prisoner or detainee to get out of harm's way, but it does not mean that the prisoner or detainee becomes free from all the constraints of custody, or may escape into the community and remain at large.

    [9][1981] VR 443.

    [10](1996) 86 A Crim R 542.

    [11]People v Lovercamp 43 Cal App 3d 823 (1974); United States v Bailey 444 US 394 (1980).

    [12][1981] VR 443 at 451, 459.

    [13][1971] Ch 734 at 745.

16. The first and second respondents do not submit, and have not at any stage of the proceedings submitted, that the Act authorises conditions of immigration detention that are inhumane, or that it removes what would otherwise be the rights of detainees to seek legal redress for civil wrongs or criminal offences to which they may be subjected. In that respect, they point to s 256 of the Act, which requires that detainees be given all reasonable facilities for obtaining legal advice or taking legal proceedings in relation to their immigration detention. What is in question is whether, by reason of their conditions of detention, detainees may lawfully escape.

17. The argument for the appellant is that the information sought by the witness summonses is relevant because it will, or may, establish that conditions at the detention centre were such that the appellant was not in immigration detention within the meaning of s 197A. The reason is said to be that, in the Act's constitutionally valid application (see s 3A), the detention which is in contemplation is detention which is not punitive in nature, whereas detention under harsh or inhumane conditions is punitive.

18. The detention which the Act contemplates, authorises, and requires is detention of unlawful non-citizens (aliens) pending processing of their visa applications or deportation. Section 189 provides that, if an officer knows or reasonably suspects that a person in the migration zone is an unlawful non-citizen, the officer must detain the person. (Reference has already been made to s 273, which empowers the establishment of detention centres.) Section 196 provides that an unlawful non-citizen detained under s 189 must be kept in immigration detention until he or she is removed or deported (under ss 198, 199 or 200) or granted a visa. Applications for a visa are commonly made on the basis that the applicant is a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations under the Refugees Convention[14]. Section 198 provides, in sub-s (6), that an officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen who is a detainee if the non-citizen has made a visa application and the application has been finally determined in a manner adverse to the applicant. Visa applications are dealt with administratively in the first instance, but are subject to a potentially lengthy process of administrative and judicial review. Cases regularly come before this Court in circumstances where this Court is invited to undertake a fifth level of decision-making in respect of a visa application. Some visa applicants hold temporary visas, and are not in immigration detention, but those who do not have visas may be detained for a substantial period while their litigation proceeds.

    [14]The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951, as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967.

19. The constitutional validity of the system of mandatory detention, which was introduced in 1992, was challenged unsuccessfully in this Court in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration[15]. The Court held that the legislation was a valid exercise of the power, conferred by s 51(xix) of the Constitution, to make laws with respect to naturalization and aliens. Mason CJ said[16]:

    "I agree with [Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ] that the legislative power conferred by s 51(xix) of the Constitution extends to conferring upon the Executive authority to detain an alien in custody for the purposes of expulsion or deportation and that such authority constitutes an incident of executive power. I also agree that authority to detain an alien in custody, when conferred in the context and for the purposes of executive powers to receive, investigate and determine an application by that alien for an entry permit and (after determination) to admit or deport, constitutes an incident of those executive powers and that such limited authority to detain an alien in custody can be conferred upon the Executive without contravening the investment of the judicial power of the Commonwealth in Ch III courts."

    [15](1992) 176 CLR 1.

    [16](1992) 176 CLR 1 at 10.

1. The concluding portion of that passage refers to an argument, dealt with extensively by Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ, and rejected, that detention of the kind there under consideration was an exercise of judicial power, and could not be conferred constitutionally on the Executive.  Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ[17], distinguishing explicitly between citizens and aliens, said that, subject to certain well-established exceptions, the involuntary detention of a citizen is penal or punitive in character and exists only as an incident of judicial power.  (Gaudron J said in another case that the exceptions are so numerous and important that it is difficult to sustain the primary proposition as a general rule[18].) The position with respect to aliens is different because of their vulnerability to exclusion or deportation, which flows from both the common law and the provision of the Constitution. In that respect, I would interpolate, exclusion includes what was referred to by the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth in argument in Chu Kheng Lim as power to make laws "to prevent aliens who ... come to Australia without permission from entering the community pending a decision whether to grant them an entry permit or to remove them from the country"[19].  Authority to detain an alien in custody, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ said, in the context and for the purposes of executive powers to receive, investigate and determine an application for an entry permit and, after determination, to admit or deport, is not punitive in nature, and not part of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.  In the case of a citizen, what is punitive in nature about involuntary detention (subject to a number of exceptions) is the deprivation of liberty involved.  But an alien does not have a right without permission to enter Australia or to become part of the community.  The alien's vulnerability to exclusion and deportation alters the nature of the detention when it is for the purpose described above.  It is an incident of the executive power to exclude people who have no right to enter Australia, to process their applications for permission to enter, and to deport them if their applications fail.

   [17](1992) 176 CLR 1 at 26-32.

   [18]Kruger v The Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1 at 110.

   [19](1992) 176 CLR 1 at 6-7.

2. That being the nature of the power of detention, there is no warrant for concluding that, if the conditions of detention are sufficiently harsh, there will come a point where the detention itself can be regarded as punitive, and an invalid exercise of judicial power. Whatever the conditions of detention, the detention itself involves involuntary deprivation of liberty. For a citizen, that alone would ordinarily constitute punishment. But for an alien, the detention is an incident of the exclusion and deportation to which an alien is vulnerable. Harsh conditions of detention may violate the civil rights of an alien. An alien does not stand outside the protection of the civil and criminal law. If an officer in a detention centre assaults a detainee, the officer will be liable to prosecution, or damages. If those who manage a detention centre fail to comply with their duty of care, they may be liable in tort. But the assault, or the negligence, does not alter the nature of the detention. It remains detention for the statutory purpose identified above. The detention is not for a punitive purpose. The detainee is deprived of his or her liberty, but not as a form of punishment. And the detainee does not cease to be in immigration detention within the meaning of the Act.

3. The information the subject of the witness summonses might have assisted the appellant to demonstrate that he had a legitimate cause for complaint about his conditions of detention, and that he had a case for legal redress. But it could not have assisted an argument that he was not in immigration detention, or that s 197A did not validly prohibit his escape. The definition of "immigration detention" in s 5 of the Act includes being held in a detention centre established under the Act. The appellant was being held in a detention centre so established. By definition, he was in immigration detention. The nature of this detention was established by the statutory provisions pursuant to which, and for the purpose of which, his detention was required. The statutory definition applied to this case. That from which he escaped was immigration detention. The conditions at the detention centre could not alter the case. For that reason, the information was irrelevant to the charge of a contravention of s 197A. The purpose for which the summonses were issued was not a legitimate forensic purpose.

4. The decision of Gray J, and of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, was correct.  The appellant's appeal should be dismissed with costs.

5. McHUGH, GUMMOW AND HEYDON JJ.   Since the grant of special leave in this case on 14 August 2003, the parties identified as the second and third appellants in the special leave application, Mr Mahmood Gholani Moggaddam and Mr Davood Hossein Amiri respectively, have been removed from Australia and a nolle prosequi has been entered in each instance.  On the first day of the hearing in this Court, the grant of special leave in their favour was rescinded.  Mr Behrooz remains the sole appellant.

6. This appeal turns upon the operation of s 197A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") and associated provisions. Section 197A was added to the Act with effect from 27 July 2001[20].  It states:

   "A detainee must not escape from immigration detention.

   Penalty:  Imprisonment for 5 years."

   A prosecution for an offence against s 197A may be instituted at any time within five years after the commission of the offence (s 492(1)).

   [20]By the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Act 2001 (Cth), Sched 1, Item 3.

7. The term "immigration detention" is defined in s 5(1) of the Act so as to include:

   "being held by, or on behalf of, an officer ... in a detention centre established under this Act".

   Section 273 empowers the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister") on behalf of the Commonwealth to cause the establishment and maintenance of centres for the detention of persons authorised under the Act. One such centre is the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre ("Woomera") which is proximate to the township of Woomera in the far north of South Australia, some 500 kilometres from Adelaide.

8. Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd ("Management") and Australasian Correctional Services Pty Ltd ("Services") are, by arrangement with the Commonwealth, responsible for the management of Woomera.  Management and Services are the third and fourth respondents in this Court but played no active role in the appeal.  The Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Department") is the first respondent.  The second respondent is the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth.

9. The appellant, Mr Behrooz, is an Iranian national and unlawful non‑citizen who was detained at Woomera. He was among six detainees alleged to have escaped from Woomera in the early hours of 18 November 2001. At the time of his alleged escape, the appellant had been in immigration detention under the Act for about 12 months.

10. The Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) ("the Magistrates Act") establishes the Magistrates Court of South Australia as a court of record (ss 4, 5). It is one of those State courts invested with federal jurisdiction by s 68 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ("the Judiciary Act")[21].  By information sworn on 21 November 2001 and laid under the Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA), Mr Behrooz and the two former appellants were charged with escaping from immigration detention contrary to s 197A of the Act.

    [21]There has been no submission that Woomera is located in a "Commonwealth place" within the meaning of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth), so as to render State laws applicable (s 4) and invest federal jurisdiction in State courts by force of s 7 of that statute. See Pinkstone v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 797 at 803-805 [33]-[41], 813 [81]-[82]; 206 ALR 84 at 92‑94, 105.

    Summonses for production

11. Section 20 of the Magistrates Act empowers that Court to require the production of "evidentiary material", a term given a broad meaning in s 3. On 10 January 2002, on application of the appellants, there were issued out of the Port Augusta Magistrates Court summonses to Management, Services and the proper officer of the Department. All summonses sought production of evidentiary material which had come into existence since 1 December 1999 and referred in specified ways to conditions at Woomera.

12. Applications were made by the recipients to set aside the summonses as oppressive and abuses of the process of the Court. After a contested hearing in which the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervened and was represented by senior counsel, the Magistrates Court delivered reasons for judgment on 24 May 2002. The Court was satisfied by the appellants that, upon the balance of probabilities, documents were sought which were likely to be relevant to their proposed defence to the charges of escaping contrary to s 197A of the Act. The Court recorded that defence as being:

    "[E]ven though detention for the purposes of [the Act] was capable of being valid detention, if the conditions of detention were so obviously harsh as to render them punitive, then the detention went beyond that which was authorised by the Act and was necessarily illegal."

    Detention at Woomera was said to be of this character, so that a detainee who escaped did not escape from a form of detention authorised by the statute.

13. The applications to set aside the summonses were dismissed, save in respect of those documents relating to periods outside the period of 23 months prior to 18 November 2001 and which related solely to minors.  The period of 23 months was the longest period for which any of the three appellants had been in detention before their alleged escape.

    The Supreme Court

14. An appeal was taken by the first respondent to the Supreme Court of South Australia constituted by a single judge (Gray J)[22].  The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the summonses.  Mr Behrooz and the other appellants then moved the Full Court of the Supreme Court for leave to appeal.  The application for leave was refused (Lander and Besanko JJ; Bleby J dissenting)[23] on 16 January 2003.

    [22]Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453.

    [23]Behrooz v Secretary, Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 84 SASR 479.

15. In this Court Mr Behrooz seeks an outcome setting aside that refusal of leave to appeal from the orders of Gray J, granting that leave and reinstating the order of the magistrate.

16. In the Full Court of the Supreme Court, the majority supported the conclusion reached by Gray J. Their Honours held that it was not reasonably arguable that Gray J had erred in concluding that there had been a failure by the appellants to identify a defence to the charges under s 197A which was known to law[24].

    [24](2003) 84 SASR 479 at 480.

17. Section 196(1) states that an unlawful non‑citizen detained under s 189 "must be kept in immigration detention until" removal from Australia under s 198 or s 199, deportation under s 200 or the grant of a visa. Shortly before the South Australian Full Court decision, the Full Federal Court had held in NAMU of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[25] that "the factual consequences" of detention for a particular individual did not render s 196(1) invalid in its application to that individual.

    [25](2002) 124 FCR 589 at 596‑598.

18. The majority of the South Australian Full Court concluded that, even if by the documents production of which was sought there was disclosed "evidentiary material" within the meaning of the Magistrates Act which would support a case based on the harshness of conditions at Woomera, such a case could not provide a defence to the charges under s 197A. Lander and Besanko JJ said[26]:

    "The [appellants] seek to argue that their detention at [Woomera] was unlawful because of the harshness of the conditions at [Woomera]. The status of the [appellants] as unlawful non‑citizens is not challenged. The fact that in the first instance they were lawfully detained, pursuant to s 189 of [the Act], is not disputed. The [appellants] do not question the validity of any section of [the Act], particularly s 196 of the Act.

    Thus, it is not disputed that in being detained they were in immigration detention. There is no dispute that [Woomera] was established as an immigration detention centre pursuant to the Act.

    We cannot see how it can be said that the harshness of the conditions at [Woomera] can lead to the conclusion that the [appellants] were no longer detainees or in some way they were no longer being held in immigration detention.

    We do not accept that harshness of conditions in a detention centre means that a detention centre ceases to have the character of a detention centre by reason that the harshness of conditions is contrary to the power of detention in the Act.

    Thus, we are of the opinion that even if the harshness of conditions was established that would not mean that any of the elements of this offence under s 197A of the Act would remain unproved."

    [26](2003) 84 SASR 479 at 480.

    The appeal to this Court

19. The appellant challenges the reasoning in that passage.  No challenge is made to the decision of the Full Federal Court in NAMU, but it is said that the issue here differs. The issue is said to be not whether s 196(1) of the Act which mandates a continued detention is valid, given "the factual consequences" for particular detainees, but whether the Act "can and does authorize the kinds of conditions that prevailed at Woomera; and if not, whether the [appellant was] in valid immigration detention there". Gray J had noted that the materials before the Supreme Court did not provide information about conditions at Woomera "which directly affected or related to any of [the appellants]"[27].

    [27](2002) 84 SASR 453 at 455.

20. Section 197A posits a "detainee", a term defined in s 5(1) as meaning "a person detained". The restraint by which or the place where the person is detained is the "immigration detention" from which it is made an offence to escape. The submissions on the appeal, for their success, require acceptance of the proposition that a person detained in what is other than "immigration detention" in the defined sense of that term is unconstrained by s 197A from escaping that detention.

21. The appellant relies upon the definition of "detain" in s 5(1) to support the proposition that "immigration detention" may include the taking of action and using of force which is no more than "reasonably necessary" for migration control purposes. Thereby the appellant seeks to constrain the prohibition against escape imposed by s 197A with notions of the purpose and proportionality of the conditions of confinement at Woomera.

22. The definition of "detain" in s 5(1) is that it:

    "means:

    (a)      take into immigration detention; or

    (b)keep, or cause to be kept, in immigration detention;

    and includes taking such action and using such force as are reasonably necessary to do so."

23. An example of meaning (a) is provided by s 189. This imposes upon officers what otherwise would be an incompletely expressed duty to "detain" certain persons; the definition makes it clear that the duty is discharged by the taking of persons into "immigration detention". An example of meaning (b) is provided by s 273 which authorises the establishment of centres for the detention of persons whose detention is authorised under the Act, that is to say, by keeping or causing them to be kept in "immigration detention".

24. The phrase in the definition of "detain", "as are reasonably necessary to do so", amplifies by the use of the term "include" what is meant by to "take into" and to "keep, or cause to be kept". As Hayne J explains in his reasons, the phrase does not qualify what is meant by "immigration detention". That is the central element for s 197A and to that term we now turn.

    "Immigration detention"

25. The definition of "immigration detention" in s 5(1) spans various kinds of restraint, of which being held in a detention centre is but one. The definition reads:

    "immigration detention means:

    (a)being in the company of, and restrained by:

    (i)an officer; or

    (ii)in relation to a particular detainee – another person directed by the Secretary to accompany and restrain the detainee; or

    (b)being held by, or on behalf of, an officer:

    (i)in a detention centre established under this Act; or

    (ii)in a prison or remand centre of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or

    (iii)in a police station or watch house; or

    (iv)in relation to a non‑citizen who is prevented, under section 249, from leaving a vessel – on that vessel; or

    (v)in another place approved by the Minister in writing;

    but does not include being restrained as described in subsection 245F(8A), or being dealt with under paragraph 245F(9)(b)".

    Further, the term "officer" encompasses a wide variety of individuals, as is apparent from the definition in s 5(1):

    "officer means:

    (a)an officer of the Department, other than an officer specified by the Minister in writing for the purposes of this paragraph; or

    (b)a person who is an officer for the purposes of the Customs Act 1901, other than such an officer specified by the Minister in writing for the purposes of this paragraph; or

    (c)a person who is a protective service officer for the purposes of the Australian Protective Service Act 1987, other than such a person specified by the Minister in writing for the purposes of this paragraph; or

    (d)a member of the Australian Federal Police or of the police force of a State or an internal Territory; or

    (e)a member of the police force of an external Territory; or

    (f)a person who is authorised in writing by the Minister to be an officer for the purposes of [the Act]; or

    (g)any person who is included in a class of persons authorised in writing by the Minister to be officers for the purposes of [the Act], including a person who becomes a member of the class after the authorisation is given."

26. So, for example, s 249(1) empowers an officer to take such action and use such force as are necessary to prevent a person reasonably suspected to be an unlawful non‑citizen from leaving a vessel on which the person arrived in Australia; being held by an officer in these circumstances is "immigration detention".  Again, a person who is in the company of and restrained by an officer for the purposes of executing a deportation order would be in "immigration detention" (ss 206, 253).  Further, s 252F renders applicable as federal laws certain State and Territory laws where detainees are held "in immigration detention in a prison or remand centre of a State or Territory".

27. These examples, drawn from the variety of operations of the definition of "immigration detention" and thus of the reach of s 197A, support a central submission by the first and second respondents. The submission is that there is a relevant distinction to be drawn between lawful authority to detain and the means by which the detention is achieved and enforced, including the conditions of the detention.

28. The first exclusion in the concluding lines of the definition of "immigration detention" assists in making the point.  "Immigration detention" does not include being restrained as described in s 245F(8A).  That sub‑section states:

    "If an officer detains a ship or aircraft under this section, any restraint on the liberty of any person found on the ship or aircraft that results from the detention of the ship or aircraft is not unlawful, and proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in respect of that restraint may not be instituted or continued in any court against the Commonwealth, the officer or any person assisting the officer in detaining the ship or aircraft."

1. In such provisions the Act evinces a distinction between the creation and continuance of the state or condition of being in "immigration detention" and the civil and criminal liabilities which officers may encounter in relation thereto. What otherwise might be civil or criminal liability arising by acts done by officers in the exercise of authority to detain persons is qualified by a number of express provisions[28].  One such is s 245F(8A) set out above.  In addition, action in good faith and with no more than reasonable force is excused in a range of cases.  These include body searches (ss 245FA, 252), and removal of persons from ships and aircraft (s 245F(9A), (9B), (10)).

   [28]cf Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 77 ALJR 40 at 43 [11], 49 [43], 57 [90], 66‑67 [134]; 192 ALR 561 at 565, 573, 584‑585, 597.

2. No such qualification to what otherwise would be liabilities of officers under the criminal or civil law is made in respect of that species of immigration detention with which the present appeal is concerned.

3. These considerations give added force to the conclusion expressed by the primary judge as follows[29]:

   "If intolerable conditions were established to exist at [Woomera] civil equitable and [administrative law] remedies may be pursued.  Criminal sanctions may also be available.  The custodians of detainees are legally accountable.  The [appellants'] detention pursuant to [the Act] is valid.  As their detention is lawful the proposed defence cannot arise as a matter of law."

   [29](2002) 84 SASR 453 at 472.

4. In this Court, the first and second respondents accepted that the Act does not authorise detention in inhumane conditions. Rather, it was submitted, the Act:

   "provides a scheme which operates against the fabric of the common law and State law pursuant to which remedies are available to redress issues relating to conditions of detention and treatment of detainees, to the extent to which they are not inconsistent with the Act".

   The reference to inconsistency with the statute was to the line of authority exemplified by Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee[30] which indicates that a common law duty of care will not be imposed where to do so would be inconsistent with a particular statutory scheme.

   [30](1999) 200 CLR 1.

5. Subject to that qualification, the respondents accept that the statute confers no immunity from liability in negligence for breach of a duty of care nor from the application of the general criminal law.  Their submission adds:

   "Equally, for example, an action for damages may lie for assault or trespass to the person, subject to express or implied statutory authority to carry out such acts as in the case of bodily searches or the provision of medical treatment without consent."

6. Those propositions should be accepted and provide an answer to the primary submission of the appellant respecting the construction of s 197A. While the conditions in which detention is suffered may attract remedies of the nature indicated above, they do not deny the legality of the immigration detention and so cannot found a defence to a charge under s 197A.

   Additional authorities

7. This conclusion is reached without particular assistance otherwise than by way of loose analogy from the reasoning in two decisions to which much reference was made in submissions.  The first is that of the House of Lords in R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague[31].  In that case, the House of Lords decided that the operation of legislation which provided lawful authority for the detention of convicted prisoners was not qualified or abrogated by conditions of detention of particular prisoners.  In Prisoners A-XX Inclusive v State of New South Wales[32], the New South Wales Court of Appeal referred to Hague as authority supporting its conclusion that with the New South Wales legislation, as with that in the United Kingdom, "intolerable" conditions of detention did not deprive imprisonment of its continued statutory basis.

   [31][1992] 1 AC 58.

   [32](1995) 38 NSWLR 622 at 628‑630.

8. Reference was made in argument to a number of decisions of the United States Supreme Court.  These have concerned two questions.  The first is whether conditions or treatment of convicted federal and state prisoners may attract protection of residual "liberty interests" by the Due Process Clause and by the proscription in the Eighth Amendment of the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments.  Wolff v McDonnell[33] and Sandin v Conner[34] indicate that the conduct of disciplinary systems and procedures may enliven the Due Process Clause.  In 1976, it was decided in Estelle v Gamble[35] that there was an Eighth Amendment violation by reason of failure to provide adequate medical care.  Thereafter, in Wilson v Seiter[36], Scalia J, delivering the opinion of the Court, explained:

   "[W]e see no significant distinction between claims alleging inadequate medical care and those alleging inadequate 'conditions of confinement'.  Indeed, the medical care a prisoner receives is just as much a 'condition' of his confinement as the food he is fed, the clothes he is issued, the temperature he is subjected to in his cell, and the protection he is afforded against other inmates."

   On the other hand, the Supreme Court has warned federal trial courts not to become "enmeshed in the minutiae of prison operations"[37].

   [33]418 US 539 (1974).

   [34]515 US 472 (1995).

   [35]429 US 97 (1976).

   [36]501 US 294 at 303 (1991).

   [37]Bell v Wolfish 441 US 520 at 562 (1979). See, generally, Antieau and Rich, Modern Constitutional Law, 2nd ed (1997), vol 2, pars 41.45‑41.52.

9. The second question concerns the remedy for such violations of constitutional rights, in particular the availability of habeas corpus for deprivation of "residual liberty", in addition to the civil action under 42 USC §1983. That statutory action is for deprivation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws", the remedy being by "an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress"[38].  In Prisoners A‑XX Inclusive v State of New South Wales[39], Sheller JA referred to the detailed discussion of the United States position respecting habeas corpus by the Supreme Court of Canada in Miller v The Queen[40].  Sheller JA concluded that, on the United States authorities placed before the Court of Appeal, the reach of the "residual liberty" to found a writ of habeas corpus for "intolerable conditions" was unsettled[41].  However, it is to be noted that the actions which reached the Supreme Court in the authorities referred to above, Wolff v McDonnell, Sandin v Conner, Estelle v Gamble and Wilson v Seiter, were proceedings under §1983. 

   [38]42 USC §1983 derives from s 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (14 Stat 27) and s 1 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (17 Stat 13):  Wright and Kane, Law of Federal Courts, 6th ed (2002), §22A, n 11.

   [39](1995) 38 NSWLR 622 at 630‑633.

   [40](1985) 24 DLR (4th) 9.

   [41](1995) 38 NSWLR 622 at 633.

10. It is unnecessary further to consider these matters in this appeal.  Enough has been said to indicate that the primary question in the United States has been the reach of the constitutional guarantees found in express terms not seen in Australia.

    Other grounds

11. The conclusion that the decision of Gray J was properly based on his Honour's conclusion that the proposed defence could not arise as a matter of law makes it unnecessary to consider further grounds advanced in this Court to support the setting aside of the summonses.

12. While Gray J allowed the appeal and set aside the summonses on the ground indicated, his Honour also held that the magistrate had not otherwise erred in declining to set the summonses aside on grounds that they were oppressive or involved an abuse of process[42].  Upon these matters this Court should find it unnecessary to enter.

    [42](2002) 84 SASR 453 at 473‑478.

    Order

13. The appeal should be dismissed with costs.

14. KIRBY J.        In Rhodes v Chapman[43], Brennan J, in the Supreme Court of the United States, observed that where "voteless, politically unpopular, and socially threatening" detainees bring proceedings before the courts to assert or defend their legal rights, judicial intervention may be indispensable "if constitutional dictates – not to mention considerations of basic humanity – are to be observed".  I agree with this proposition.  It informs my approach to this appeal.

    [43]452 US 337 at 354, 358 (1981). See Taylor, "Detained Aliens Challenging Conditions of Confinement and the Porous Border of the Plenary Power Doctrine", (1995) 22 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 1087 at 1127.

15. The appeal concerns whether "immigration detention" ceases to be such, within the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act"), when the conditions of that "detention" are inhuman or intolerable. In my view, it is arguable that it does: detention is not "immigration detention" if it involves conditions that are inhuman or intolerable. Evidence on the point was therefore admissible in these proceedings, indeed critical. The court below erred in concluding that the issue was not legally arguable.

    The facts

16. The "escape" and charges:Mr Mahran Behrooz ("the appellant"), a national of Iran, arrived in Australia without a visa. He was designated by the Act an "unlawful non-citizen"[44].  He was taken into immigration detention.  From early 2000, he was held at the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre ("Woomera").

    [44]ss 5, 14(1).

17. On or about 18 November 2001 the appellant left (to use a neutral expression) Woomera along with other detainees being held there. He was subsequently taken back into custody. Together with two others (Mr Mahmood Gholani Moggaddam and Mr Davood Hossein Amiri) he was charged with an offence against s 197A the Act. The offence was that "being a detainee [he] escaped from Immigration Detention". The section provides:

    "A detainee must not escape from immigration detention. 

    Penalty:  Imprisonment for 5 years."

18. Similar charges were brought against Mr Moggaddam and Mr Amiri.  They made common cause with the appellant in their defence.  However, between the decision under appeal and the hearing in this Court they were, at their own request, removed from Australia.  The Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew the criminal proceedings against each of them.  The proceedings against the appellant remain on foot.

19. The magistrate's ruling:In the Magistrate's Court of South Australia, the appellant foreshadowed a defence that he wished to bring in answer to the charge. In part, the defence was based on the terms of the Act, on their face, and in part upon those terms as understood in the light of the Constitution. Counsel indicated that he wished to argue that the conditions in which the appellant was kept at Woomera were "so obviously harsh" as to fall outside the notion of "immigration detention" as envisaged by the Act and as permitted by the Constitution. Because the conditions in which he was kept did not, therefore, amount to "immigration detention", the appellant's departure from those conditions did not constitute an "escape from immigration detention" within s 197A. He was therefore entitled to be acquitted of the charge.

20. The appellant placed certain materials before Mr Moss CM in a hearing in the Magistrate's Court relating to the charge.  These were designed to demonstrate the bona fides and factual arguability of the defence just stated.  In an attempt to establish the defence by relevant evidence, witness summonses were issued by the Magistrate's Court in January 2002 at the request of the appellant.  These required the departmental and management organisations responsible for Woomera to produce to the Court documents concerning the conditions at Woomera and complaints received about those conditions.  An application was made on behalf of the recipients of the summonses for an order setting them aside.  The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervened to support that application.  In substance, the Chief Magistrate rejected the application.  With some modifications as to detail, he confirmed the summonses.

21. Decisions in the Supreme Court:Against those orders, an appeal[45] was taken to the Supreme Court of South Australia.  It was heard by the primary judge (Gray J).  His Honour rejected one of the two bases argued, namely that the summonses were expressed in terms that were oppressive[46].  However, he upheld the primary objection that the appellant had not "established that the material sought by the summonses has evidentiary value in the proceedings"[47].  Principally, his Honour concluded that the appellant had not identified a "defence known to the law" and that his complaint about the conditions in which he was held at Woomera, even if proved, could not, "as a matter of law make the detention unlawful"[48].  On that basis, the primary judge set the witness summonses aside.

    [45]And a proceeding for judicial review which did not ultimately have to be decided.

    [46]Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 457 [11], 477-478 [88]-[90].

    [47]Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 473 [72].

    [48]Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 473 [73].

22. The appellant then sought leave to appeal.  His application came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia[49].  That Court dealt only with the arguability of the defence. It did not consider the primary judge's determination of the issue relating to alleged oppression. 

    [49]Behrooz v Secretary, Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 84 SASR 479.

23. A majority of the Full Court (Lander and Besanko JJ) favoured refusal of leave to appeal[50].  Their Honours considered it arguable that the primary judge had placed too high an onus on the appellant in rejecting the factual relevance of the materials that the appellant had sought in the summonses[51]. However, like the primary judge, the majority concluded that the evidence sought could not, as a matter of law, establish a defence to the charge under s 197A. The other judge constituting the Full Court (Bleby J) dissented. He concluded that the appellant had an arguable case and that the issues were of obvious importance for the operation of the Act. He would have granted leave to appeal[52]. 

    [50]Behrooz (2003) 84 SASR 479 at 479 [1], 480 [10]. See also reasons of McHugh, Gummow and Heydon JJ (the "joint reasons") at [35]; reasons of Callinan J at [201].

    [51]Behrooz (2003) 84 SASR 479 at 479-480 [2]-[3].

    [52]Behrooz (2003) 84 SASR 479 at 480 [11]. See reasons of Callinan J at [202].

24. The hearing in this Court:By special leave, the appellant now brings an appeal to this Court.  Some of the issues argued in the case overlapped those presented in concurrent proceedings[53]. However, unlike those proceedings, it is not possible in my view to resolve the appellant's arguments in this appeal by means of statutory interpretation, confining the issues for decision to the four corners of the Act.

    [53]In Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37 and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Al Khafaji [2004] HCA 38.

25. Here, the issues are more numerous and complex.  In resolving those issues, this Court had the considerable assistance of written submissions filed for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("HREOC").  Whilst not offering argument addressed to the merits of the appellant's case, HREOC's submissions added a dimension to the arguments by reference to the obligations accepted by Australia under international law, affecting the "detention" of the appellant.  It is easy for a Court such as this to overlook such important legal perspectives.  To the extent that it does, this Court places itself outside the mainstream of constitutional and common law doctrine as it is developing in virtually every country of the world[54].

    [54]See, for example, Lawrence v Texas 539 US 558 (2003). See also Koh, "International Law as Part of Our Law", (2004) 98 American Journal of International Law 43.

    Common ground

26. Uncontested issues: The issues for decision in the appeal were narrowed by a high measure of common ground between the parties. For the appellant it was conceded that, in accordance with the Act, he was an "unlawful non-citizen"[55] and that, his initial detention, as such, was lawful[56].  The appellant did not contest the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to enact provisions for the detention of an alien such as himself[57]. It was not the appellant's case that, because of the conditions of his "detention" at Woomera he was entitled to free release into the Australian community. He confined his claim to the assertion of a defence to the criminal charge brought against him and to his argument that the conditions in which he was kept did not answer, under the Act or the Constitution, to a legally permissible form of administrative "detention".

    [55]Behrooz (2003) 84 SASR 479 at 480 [5]-[6].

    [56]Under the Act, ss 5, 14(1), 189(1).

    [57]Under the Constitution, s 51(xix). See also s 51(xxvii). The validity of immigration detention was upheld in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1.

27. The respondents accepted that the witness summonses were addressed to the proper officers of their organisations and that the course of appealing against the Chief Magistrate's order had interrupted the trial of the appellant on a serious criminal charge.  They also accepted that if the trial were to go ahead without all, or any, evidence as sought in the summonses, it would have to be decided on the limited factual basis that the appellant could otherwise provide.  Thus, it would be determined without the benefit of evidence procured from the respondents.  If a defence were legally available, this would place the appellant in an intolerable position.

28. The appellant conceded that, for the purpose of advancing his submission that his detention amounted to a form of "punishment", impermissible under the Constitution and outside that contemplated by the Act, the mere fact that immigration detention impinged on his liberty, did not make it punitive as such. The respondents, for their part, conceded that the Act does not authorise detention in inhuman or intolerable conditions. However, they argued that the remedies for inhuman detention lay not in denial of the legality of the detention itself, but in tortious, administrative and other proceedings brought to challenge the alleged mistreatment.

29. The appellant did not assert that he was compelled to escape from Woomera by an immediate threat or danger.  Nor did he propound a defence to the charge brought against him based on the doctrine of necessity in criminal law[58]. He confined the defence, for which he sought to procure the evidence specified in the summonses, to one based on the meaning of "detention" as provided in the Act and as permitted by the Constitution.

    [58]Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 472-473 [71] per Gray J, referring to R v Loughnan [1981] VR 443 at 448.

30. Three added facts:This Court was informed, without opposition, of three facts. First, that as a result of the interruption occasioned by the interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court, the trial of the appellant had been delayed pending the outcome of these proceedings. Secondly, that a number of communications complaining about the conditions of immigration detention under the Act at Woomera and elsewhere had been taken to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations ("UNHRC"). We were supplied with copies of the views of the UNHRC and other bodies upon some such communications[59].  Thirdly, the Court was told that, since the happening out of which the charge against the appellant arose, the immigration detention centre at Woomera has been closed[60].

    [59]A v Australia, Human Rights Committee Communication No 560/1993; C v Australia, Human Rights Committee Communication No 900/1999; Baban v Australia, Human Rights Committee Communication No 1014/2001.  See also Bakhtyari v Australia, Human Rights Committee Communication No 1069/2002.

    [60][2003] HCATrans 306 at 433.

    The applicable legislation

1. The system of mandatory detention:The provisions of the Act relevant to the determination of the appeal, in addition to s 197A under which the appellant is charged are set out, or referred to, in other reasons[61].  I will not repeat any of this material. 

   [61]Joint reasons at [25], [44]; reasons of Hayne J at [159]-[164]; reasons of Callinan J at [203]-[211].

2. Different countries have established various schemes for the determination of claims to refugee status under the Refugees Convention[62].  Australia's enactment of a system of mandatory detention for persons arriving without due authority is not the only response available to that problem[63].  However, the reasons for it are sometimes explained by reference to considerations of history, geography, the size of the continent, its scattered centres of population and the absence of any general obligation to carry identity documents within Australia. 

   [62]Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951, [1954] Australian Treaty Series No 5; Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967, [1973] Australian Treaty Series No 37.

   [63]Billings, "A Comparative Analysis of Administrative and Adjudicative Systems for Determining Asylum Claims", (2000) 52 Administrative Law Review 253 at 268-269.  In 1998, the HREOC report Those Who've Come Across the Seas:  Detention of Unauthorised Arrivals, recommended that the detention of asylum seekers should be a last resort, for use only on exceptional grounds (at 53). This recommendation has not been accepted by the Parliament. The Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration subsequently undertook a review of the Act. However, it concluded that no alternative to mandatory detention was acceptable given the absence of a national identity card in Australia and the consequent difficulty of identifying illegal non-citizens once they had crossed the frontier.

3. The appellant accepted the constitutional validity of the scheme established by the Act to impose regulations upon entrants to Australia's "migration zone"[64], to require the identification of non-citizens, to detain those attempting to enter without authority, to hold them in detention whilst processing any application they might make to remain in Australia and to remove or deport those remaining non-citizens determined to have no authority to remain or who, like the appellant's co-accused, request their own removal[65].

   [64]See the Act, ss 5(1), 6, 13(1), 14(1). See also Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Act 2001 (Cth) and Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Act 2001 (Cth).

   [65]See the Act, s 4 ("Object of Act"), set out in the reasons of Callinan J at [203].

4. Conditions of detention:The Act lays down relatively clear obligations to effect detention in given circumstances[66]; what that detention involves, in terms of physical action and place[67]; and what must ensue "as soon as reasonably practicable" for the removal (or deportation) of the non-citizen. However, it is generally silent concerning the conditions of such detention. In particular, nothing is said in the Act specifically about the minimum conditions that must be observed for people held in "immigration detention" or at "a detention centre". On the face of things, this might appear to leave such conditions to the unfettered discretion of the Minister, accountable for them to the Parliament, or to officials and other persons (such as the respondents) concerned in the organisation and maintenance of detention centres. The Act permits regulations to be made which might conceivably include provisions for the conditions of persons in "immigration detention"[68].  However, it is apparent that, to the relevant time, no such regulations had been made to govern the conditions of detention centres[69].  True, there are immigration detention standards.  The appellant complained that these were not complied with in his case[70].

   [66]The Act, s 189, set out in the reasons of Callinan J at [209].

   [67]The Act, s 5. See reasons of Callinan J at [204].

   [68]The Act, s 273.

   [69][2003] HCATrans 458 at 6465-6467.

   [70][2003] HCATrans 458 at 6469-6484.

5. The absence of a statutory elaboration of the conditions within an immigration detention centre does not mean that there are no standards which the law of this country will uphold. Correctly, the respondents accepted that the Act, being made as a law to operate "against the fabric of the common law and State law", would not authorise administrative detention in inhuman and intolerable conditions. The obligations implied into the Act by the general law, or grafted onto its provisions, could not contradict the necessities, express or implied, in valid provisions of the Act[71].  But the respondents submitted that the way to enforce any complaint about inhuman or intolerable conditions was by proceedings brought for that purpose.  It was not self-help, such as by escape from "detention".  The authority to be in immigration detention being established by law, escape could not therefore be lawful.  The respondents supported the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the argument to the contrary was legally untenable.

   [71]See Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1 at 34 [79].

   The issues

6. The following issues arise in the appeal:

   (1)Approach to the claim for summary relief:What approach was it proper for the courts below to take to the respondents' application for peremptory relief against the witness summonses sought by the appellant?  Was it appropriate in the circumstances for the Supreme Court to grant such relief?

   (2)The common law and escape from custody:What light, if any, does the common law throw on the meaning of "immigration detention" and the entitlement of a detainee to leave such "detention" to avoid allegedly inhuman and intolerable conditions?

   (3)The constitutional necessity of a federal source and judicial order for punishment:What light does the Constitution throw on, or what meaning does the Constitution require of, the phrase "immigration detention" in s 197A of the Act, for an offence against which the appellant has been charged?

   (4)International law and arbitrary detention:What light, if any, do the obligations assumed by Australia under international law throw on the meaning of "escape" and "immigration detention" in s 197A?

   (5)Exhausting alternative remedies:Is it an answer to the complaints of the appellant concerning the allegedly inhuman and intolerable conditions of his "immigration detention" that he may bring proceedings for relief under administrative law, or for civil wrongs, but not a challenge to the validity and lawfulness of his "detention"?

   (6)An arguable "defence" under the Act:In the light of the resolution of the foregoing issues, does the appellant have an arguable defence to the charge under s 197A of the Act, based on the conditions of his immigration detention, so that he is entitled, in principle, to obtain the evidence directed to that defence as sought in the witness summonses?

   (7)The argument of oppression and remitter:If the answers to the foregoing issues are favourable to the appellant, are the witness summonses in their terms oppressive, entitling the respondents, on their notice of contention, to relief on that ground?  If it be necessary to decide this issue, should it be determined by this Court or by the Supreme Court?

   Approach to the claim for summary relief

7. The decision of the Chief Magistrate that triggered the present proceedings was one occasioned by the application for the respondents seeking, in effect, summary relief against the witness summonses.  Four points need to be made in relation to this issue.  They are significant for the conclusion that I will ultimately reach. 

8. Disadvantages of interlocutory appeals:This Court has repeatedly affirmed that it is ordinarily undesirable that the course of a criminal trial should be interrupted by interlocutory appeals[72].  Even where the point in issue is legally important and arguable, where its resolution might save time or affect other persons or result in a termination of the trial, reasons of principle normally demand that appellate interlocutory intervention be refused[73]. 

   [72]eg Smith v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 338 at 346; Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) v B (1998) 194 CLR 566 at 591-593.

   [73]eg R v Elliott (1996) 185 CLR 250 at 257.

9. In part, this approach is taken to avoid oppression of individuals by interlocutory appeals brought by the prosecution or misuse of criminal process by well-resourced litigants who prolong proceedings without real merit.  In part, it arises because of the law's experience that many interlocutory issues resolve themselves in the course of a trial[74]. Normally, such issues are resolved more satisfactorily on the basis of findings based on evidence rather than holdings made on hypotheses adopted in advance of the evidence. The course adopted by the respondents in this case, in interrupting the trial of the appellant, arguably denied this Court a proper evidentiary foundation upon which to rest conclusions of significance for the meaning of the Act and the operation of the Constitution upon the Act. A majority of this Court now reaches its conclusion without having the desirable evidentiary foundation in the primary court, which is the way this Court has repeatedly said cases of the present kind should ordinarily be decided.

   [74]In re the Will of F B Gilbert (dec’d) (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318 at 323.

10. Restraint in peremptory relief:The peremptory relief sought by the respondents was governed by established principles that insist upon restraint on the part of judges exercising such jurisdiction whether by way of appeal or judicial review.  Such restraint, which applies to civil as well as criminal applications, arises from a number of considerations, some of them already mentioned.  Rulings on the availability of a legal action or defence are normally better made by courts when any evidence, said by the party propounding the action or defence, has been adduced.  Legal issues are rarely, if ever, wholly disjoined from facts.  Facts cast light upon the operation of the law.  Factual merits are not irrelevant to the way courts, which are sworn to do justice, respond to alternative elaborations of the law.  It is futile to suggest that the substance of law is somehow disconnected from facts. 

11. Because, under the rule of law, parties propounding serious actions or defences are normally entitled to have their day in court, it is exceptional to stop them in their tracks on the footing that they have no arguable cause of action or no arguable defence.  The exceptional character of the relief sought at trial in the Magistrate's Court was doubled when the respondents lost the application there, interrupted the trial further and renewed their demand in the Supreme Court.  To the extent that discretionary considerations and considerations involving the evaluation of complex materials were found in the Magistrate's Court to support the matter proceeding in the normal way, these were added reasons for restraint on the part of the primary judge.  The Full Court was bound to observe and uphold such restraint.

12. The approach to be taken to the application made by the respondents before the Chief Magistrate is not in doubt.  It is established by analogy to the approach taken by this Court in many cases[75].  In Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners[76], Dixon J explained that a "case must be very clear indeed to justify the summary intervention of the court to prevent a plaintiff submitting [the plaintiff's] case for determination in the appointed manner by the court with or without a jury".  A similar insistence on "great care" before denying a party the "opportunity for the trial of [the party's] case by the appointed tribunal" was voiced by Barwick CJ in General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW)[77]. 

    [75]eg Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516 at 529 [35].

    [76](1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91.

    [77](1964) 112 CLR 125 at 130.

13. The foregoing words, expressed in the context of civil proceedings, have added force in a case such as the present.  Here, what is at stake is the right of the appellant to defend himself against an indictable criminal charge.  Ordinary principles suggest an added requirement of caution before preventing such a person obtaining evidence, as he is advised, in order to establish matters relevant to his resistance to the charge.  This is especially so where the "defence" propounded amounts, in effect, to a challenge to the capacity of the prosecution to prove an essential element of the offence charged against him[78].

    [78]Namely "escape from immigration detention". See the Act, s 197A.

14. It is true that argument, "perhaps even of an extensive kind, may be necessary to demonstrate that" the issue to which the evidence is directed "is so clearly untenable that it cannot possibly succeed"[79].  However, it is the repeated instruction of this Court that peremptory relief of the kind sought by the respondents in the present case "must be sparingly exercised"[80].  As McHugh J has explained, in relation to a civil case, "the mere fact that the plaintiff's prospects of success are slim is not enough to strike out a pleading"[81].  A fortiori, the mere fact that the arguments of a defendant in a criminal proceeding present novel and difficult issues is not enough to strike out the process that seeks to adduce evidence propounded as evidence to resistance to the charge.  In our legal system, the proper place and time to resolve novel and difficult questions of law in such matters is normally in the trial and the regular appellate system after trial.  It is not in interlocutory process[82].

    [79]General Steel (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 130.

    [80]Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 188 CLR 241 at 271.

    [81]Esanda (1997) 188 CLR 241 at 271.

    [82]See Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96 at 122 [29], 134-135 [66]-[67].

15. Special restraint in new areas of law:This is not to deny that proper cases will exist where a firm conclusion may be reached with reasonable efficiency and on limited materials that the propounded action or defence is "doomed to fail".  However, where the law is uncertain, where it is in a "state of transition"[83] and (I would add) where the resolution concerns aspects of fundamental human rights and criminal liability, the restraints normally applicable to applications for summary relief are enlarged.  This is because of the "undesirability of courts attempting to formulate legal rules against a background of hypothetical facts" involving "the potential unfairness to [parties] if their cases were finally ruled upon before they were able, with the benefit of [court procedures], to refine their factual allegations"[84].  Like judges who have gone before (and in much simpler cases) "I share the unease … at deciding questions of legal principle without knowing the full facts"[85].

    [83]E (A Minor) v Dorset County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 at 694; Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 78 ALJR 628 at 654 [138]; 205 ALR 522 at 558.

    [84]E (A Minor) [1995] 2 AC 633 at 693 per Sir Thomas Bingham MR, citing argument recorded in Lonrho Plc v Fayed [1992] 1 AC 448 at 469-470.

    [85]E (A Minor) [1995] 2 AC 633 at 693 per Sir Thomas Bingham MR.

16. Evidentiary foundation for bona fides:  Enough facts were adduced before the Chief Magistrate to demonstrate, in the words of Bleby J in the Full Court, that "the issues concerned are of importance … in the operation of the [Act]"[86].  With respect, in the Supreme Court only Bleby J adopted the correct legal approach to the application mounted by the respondents. 

    [86]Behrooz (2003) 84 SASR 479 at 480 [11].

17. However, although the appellant was deprived by the resolution of that application of the full evidentiary foundation he sought for his arguments, there was sufficient evidence before the Chief Magistrate to make it clear that the appellant was not wasting the time of the courts.  He was propounding a serious and potentially important issue to be tried.

18. It is true that much of the material filed by the appellant in the Magistrate's Court was not specifically related to Woomera[87].  Some of it was "vague"[88] and addressed to times distant from the appellant's alleged "escape"[89].  Some was from sources not wholly independent and dispassionate.  However, the appellant fairly pointed out that this was inherent in denying him access to recorded and official material specific to complaints and investigations concerning conditions in Woomera at the time of his alleged offence. 

    [87]Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 467 [48].

    [88]Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 470 [64].

    [89]Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 470 [64].

19. For all that, there remained a considerable body of disturbing evidence, assembled for the appellant's case, from which inferences might be drawn that the conditions of supposed "detention" in which he was kept were inhuman and intolerable.  I will not repeat all of this evidence, necessarily untested at this stage of the proceedings.  But it includes that included in an address by Professor Richard Harding, Inspector of Custodial Services in Western Australia, based on an inspection of the Curtin Detention Centre in Western Australia which, as he put it, like that at Woomera, was "in the middle of nowhere"[90].  Professor Harding described the conditions that he had seen as "an absolute disgrace":  involving gross overcrowding, broken toilets, unprivate conditions, lack of medical and dental facilities, combining with a situation at Curtin said to be "almost intolerable" and a statement that such "evidence as exists indicates things are little better at the other Centres"[91]. 

    [90]Harding, "Standards and Accountability in the Administration of Prisons and Immigration Detention Centres", unpublished speech to the International Corrections and Prisons Association Conference, Perth, 30 October 2001 ("Harding"). The conclusions are cited by the primary judge: Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 467 [49]-[50].

    [91]Harding, cited in Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 467-468 [50]. Note that this statement was misquoted in the reasons of the primary judge as "things are a little better at other centres" (emphasis added to identify misquotation).

20. A detailed newspaper report describes what is said to have been the unanimous advice to the Minister for Immigration calling for the closure of Woomera and other measures to help avert a "human tragedy of unknowable proportions"[92]. This report, based on the opinion of the Immigration Detention Advisory Group whom the Minister reportedly called in to negotiate with hunger-strikers at Woomera, demanded an end to the "demonisation" of the detainees. Another report recounts reports of suicide, hunger-strikes and self-harm[93].  The report states that "[a]lmost every day, asylum seekers inside [Woomera] cut and slash their bodies, drink shampoo or try to hang themselves.  But mostly they are ignored".  A psychiatric nurse is quoted in the report as stating that the detainees felt they "were treated like animals … medication [was] fed through wire mesh to detainees and [there was] a pervasive belief that suicide was the only way out".  According to this nurse, "Woomera is a totally traumatising, alienating experience because they are not treated with humanity"[94].  Particularly distressing is the recorded description of the alleged treatment of children kept in detention, one of whom, detained at Woomera, reportedly went mute for a time in apparent reaction to his experiences[95]. 

    [92]The Age, 29 January 2002 at 1, cited in Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 468 [53].

    [93]The Age, 24 April 2002, cited by the primary judge:  Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 468-469 [54].

    [94]Cited in Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 468-469 [54].

    [95]Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Asylum Seekers in Detention:  Health Report, 13 August 2001, in evidence below.

1. Bleby J was of a different view[180]:

   "I would grant leave to appeal.  In my opinion, the [appellant has] an arguable case on both the grounds on which Gray J decided the appeal from the magistrate.  The issues concerned are of importance, of course, in the operation of the Migration Act.  For those reasons I would grant leave."

   [180]Behrooz v Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 84 SASR 479 at 480 [11].

   The appeal to this Court

2. Before dealing with the arguments of the parties I should set out, as at the date of the appellant's escape from Woomera, the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 4 should be noted first:

   "Object of Act

   (1)The object of this Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens.

   (2)To advance its object, this Act provides for visas permitting non-citizens to enter or remain in Australia and the Parliament intends that this Act be the only source of the right of non-citizens to so enter or remain.

   (3)To advance its object, this Act requires persons, whether citizens or non-citizens, entering Australia to identify themselves so that the Commonwealth government can know who are the non-citizens so entering.

   (4)To advance its object, this Act provides for the removal or deportation from Australia of non-citizens whose presence in Australia is not permitted by this Act."

3. Section 5 defined what it meant to "detain" a person:

   "detain means:

   (a)      take into immigration detention; or

   (b)      keep, or cause to be kept, in immigration detention

   … ."

4. The same section defined "immigration detention" as follows:

   "immigration detention means:

   ...

   (b)      being held by, or on behalf of, an officer:

   (i)in a detention centre established under this Act; or

   ...

   (v)in another place approved by the Minister in writing;

   … ."

5. Section 36 of the Act provided as follows:

   "Protection visas

   (1)There is a class of visas to be known as protection visas.

   (2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

   (a)a non-citizen in Australia to whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol; or

   (b)a non-citizen in Australia who is the spouse or a dependant of a non-citizen who:

   (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

   (ii)holds a protection visa.

   Protection obligations

   (3)Australia is taken not to have protection obligations to a non-citizen who has not taken all possible steps to avail himself or herself of a right to enter and reside in, whether temporarily or permanently and however that right arose or is expressed, any country apart from Australia, including countries of which the non-citizen is a national.

   (4)However, if the non-citizen has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in a country for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, subsection (3) does not apply in relation to that country.

   (5)Also, if the non-citizen has a well-founded fear that:

   (a)a country will return the non-citizen to another country; and

   (b)the non-citizen will be persecuted in that other country for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;

   subsection (3) does not apply in relation to the first‑mentioned country.

   Determining nationality

   (6)For the purposes of subsection (3), the question of whether a non-citizen is a national of a particular country must be determined solely by reference to the law of that country.

   (7) Subsection (6) does not, by implication, affect the interpretation of any other provision of this Act."

6. Section 176 referred to detention, but not to detention under Div 7 of the Act:

   "Reason for Division

   This Division is enacted because the Parliament considers that it is in the national interest that each non-citizen who is a designated person should be kept in immigration detention until he or she:

   (a)      leaves Australia; or

   (b)      is given a visa."

7. Section 182 referred to temporal limitations but applied only to certain aliens:

   "No immigration detention or removal after certain period

   (1)Sections 178 and 181 cease to apply to a designated person who was in Australia on 27 April 1992 if the person has been in application immigration detention after commencement for a continuous period of, or periods whose sum is, 273 days.

   ...

   (6)      If:

   (a)an entry application for a designated person has been refused; and

   (b)apart from this subsection, section 178 would cease to apply to the person; and

   (c)the person begins court or tribunal proceedings in relation to the refusal;

   that section applies to the person during both these proceedings and the period of 90 days after they end, whether or not this subsection has applied to that entry application before."

8. Section 189 in Div 7 of the Act was expressed in mandatory language:

   "Detention of unlawful non-citizens

   (1)If an officer knows or reasonably suspects that a person in the migration zone (other than an excised offshore place) is an unlawful non-citizen, the officer must detain the person.

   (2)If an officer reasonably suspects that a person in Australia but outside the migration zone:

   (a)is seeking to enter the migration zone (other than an excised offshore place); and

   (b)would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen;

   the officer must detain the person.

   (3)If an officer knows or reasonably suspects that a person in an excised offshore place is an unlawful non-citizen, the officer may detain the person.

   (4)If an officer reasonably suspects that a person in Australia but outside the migration zone:

   (a)is seeking to enter an excised offshore place; and

   (b)would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen;

   the officer may detain the person.

   (5)In subsections (3) and (4) and any other provisions of this Act that relate to those subsections, officer means an officer within the meaning of section 5, and includes a member of the Australian Defence Force."

9. Section 196 provided as follows:

   "Period of detention

   (1)An unlawful non-citizen detained under section 189 must be kept in immigration detention until he or she is:

   (a)removed from Australia under section 198 or 199; or

   (b) deported under section 200; or

   (c)      granted a visa.

   (2)To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not prevent the release from immigration detention of a citizen or a lawful non-citizen.

   (3)To avoid doubt, subsection (1) prevents the release, even by a court, of an unlawful non-citizen from detention (otherwise than for removal or deportation) unless the non-citizen has been granted a visa."

10. Section 198 was very comprehensively expressed and provided as follows:

    "Removal from Australia of unlawful non-citizens

    (1)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen who asks the Minister, in writing, to be so removed.

    (2)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen:

    (a)who is covered by subparagraph 193(1)(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) or paragraph 193(1)(b), (c) or (d); and

    (b)who has not subsequently been immigration cleared; and

    (c)who either:

    (i)has not made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone; or

    (ii)has made a valid application for a substantive visa, that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone, that has been finally determined.

    (2A)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen if:

    (a)the non-citizen is covered by subparagraph 193(1)(a)(iv); and

    (b)since the Minister's decision (the original decision) referred to in subparagraph 193(1)(a)(iv), the non-citizen has not made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the non-citizen is in the migration zone; and

    (c)in a case where the non-citizen has been invited, in accordance with section 501C, to make representations to the Minister about revocation of the original decision – either:

    (i)the non-citizen has not made representations in accordance with the invitation and the period for making representations has ended; or

    (ii)the non-citizen has made representations in accordance with the invitation and the Minister has decided not to revoke the original decision.

    (3)The fact that an unlawful non-citizen is eligible to apply for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone but has not done so does not prevent the application of subsection (2) or (2A) to him or her.

    (5)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen if the non-citizen:

    (a)      is a detainee; and

    (b)was entitled to apply for a visa in accordance with section 195, to apply under section 137K for revocation of the cancellation of a visa, or both, but did neither.

    (6)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen if:

    (a)      the non-citizen is a detainee; and

    (b)the non-citizen made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone; and

    (c)one of the following applies:

    (i)the grant of the visa has been refused and the application has been finally determined;

    (iii)the visa cannot be granted; and

    (d)the non-citizen has not made another valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone.

    (7)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen if:

    (a)      the non-citizen is a detainee; and

    (b)Subdivision AI of Division 3 of this Part applies to the non-citizen; and

    (c)either:

    (i)the non-citizen has not been immigration cleared; or

    (ii)the non-citizen has not made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone; and

    (d)either:

    (i)the Minister has not given a notice under paragraph 91F(1)(a) to the non-citizen; or

    (ii)the Minister has given such a notice but the period mentioned in that paragraph has ended and the non-citizen has not, during that period, made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone.

    (8)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen if:

    (a)      the non-citizen is a detainee; and

    (b)Subdivision AJ of Division 3 of this Part applies to the non-citizen; and

    (c)either:

    (i)the Minister has not given a notice under subsection 91L(1) to the non-citizen; or

    (ii)the Minister has given such a notice but the period mentioned in that subsection has ended and the non-citizen has not, during that period, made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone.

    (9)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen if:

    (a)      the non-citizen is a detainee; and

    (b)Subdivision AK of Division 3 of this Part applies to the non-citizen; and

    (c)either:

    (i)the non-citizen has not been immigration cleared; or

    (ii)the non-citizen has not made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone; and

    (d)either:

    (i)the Minister has not given a notice under subsection 91Q(1) to the non-citizen; or

    (ii)the Minister has given such a notice but the period mentioned in that subsection has ended and the non-citizen has not, during that period, made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone.

    (10)For the purposes of subsections (6) to (9), a valid application under section 137K for revocation of the cancellation of a visa is treated as though it were a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone."

11. The appellant's argument relied to a substantial extent upon the decision and some statements made in this Court in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration[181]. There, the detainees had argued that the purpose of the Act was, invalidly, to authorize, indeed compel members of the Executive to arrest and detain by imprisoning them, persons otherwise than by order of a court exercising judicial power: that the detention was in short therefore punitive. By a majority the Court held that the relevant provision of the Act, s 54R, was invalid because it purported to direct the courts about the manner of exercise of their judicial power.

    [181](1992) 176 CLR 1.

12. Here the appellant argued that his detention was unlawful by reason of the conditions of it, allegedly of squalor, deprivation, overcrowding and harshness, and amounting therefore to punishment.  I should immediately point out that these allegations are denied and have not been the subject of any forensic contest.  It should also be observed that much of the material upon which the appellant would wish to rely may not be admissible in evidence, both as to form and substance.  It is not entirely clear whether the appellant was also seeking to make a case of the same kind as the non-governmental parties in Al-Kateb v Godwin[182] and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Al Khafaji[183], that indefiniteness of detention deemed their detention unlawful.  Nothing was however proved about the prospects or otherwise of deportation of the appellant to some other country, and accordingly the arguments advanced in those cases have no application to him.  If they did I would reject them for the same reasons as I do in those cases.

    [182][2004] HCA 37.

    [183][2004] HCA 38.

13. The statements in Lim upon which the appellant based his case need to be put in context.  That context includes this statement as to the breadth of the aliens power in the joint judgment of Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ[184]:

    "The legislative power conferred by s 51(xix) with respect to 'aliens' is expressed in unqualified terms. It prima facie encompasses the enactment of a law with respect to non-citizens generally. It also prima facie encompasses the enactment of a law with respect to a particular category or class of non-citizens, such as non-citizens who are illegal entrants or non-citizens who are in Australia without having presented a visa or obtained an entry permit. Such a law may, without trespassing beyond the reach of the legislative power conferred by s 51(xix), either exclude the entry of non-citizens or a particular class of non-citizens into Australia or prescribe conditions upon which they may be permitted to enter and remain; and it may also provide for their expulsion or deportation.[185]"

    [184](1992) 176 CLR 1 at 25-26.

    [185]See, eg, Robtelmes v Brenan (1906) 4 CLR 395 at 400‑404, 415, 420-422; Ex parte Walsh and Johnson; In re Yates (1925) 37 CLR 36 at 83, 94, 108, 117, 132-133; O'Keefe v Calwell (1949) 77 CLR 261 at 277-278, 288; Koon Wing Lau v Calwell (1949) 80 CLR 533 at 555-556, 558-559; Pochi v Macphee (1982) 151 CLR 101 at 106.

14. Passages to and upon which the appellant points and relies are as follows[186]:

    "There are some qualifications which must be made to the general proposition that the power to order that a citizen be involuntarily confined in custody is, under the doctrine of the separation of judicial from executive and legislative powers enshrined in our Constitution, part of the judicial power of the Commonwealth entrusted exclusively to Ch III courts. The most important is that which Blackstone himself identified … namely, the arrest and detention in custody, pursuant to executive warrant, of a person accused of crime to ensure that he or she is available to be dealt with by the courts. Such committal to custody awaiting trial is not seen by the law as punitive or as appertaining exclusively to judicial power. Even where exercisable by the Executive, however, the power to detain a person in custody pending trial is ordinarily subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts, including the 'ancient common law' jurisdiction, 'before and since the conquest', to order that a person committed to prison while awaiting trial be admitted to bail[187].  Involuntary detention in cases of mental illness or infectious disease can also legitimately be seen as non-punitive in character and as not necessarily involving the exercise of judicial power.  Otherwise, and putting to one side the traditional powers of the Parliament to punish for contempt[188] and of military tribunals to punish for breach of military discipline[189], the citizens of this country enjoy, at least in times of peace[190], a constitutional immunity from being imprisoned by Commonwealth authority except pursuant to an order by a court in the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.

    ...

    In the light of what has been said above, the two sections will be valid laws if the detention which they require and authorize is limited to what is reasonably capable of being seen as necessary for the purposes of deportation or necessary to enable an application for an entry permit to be made and considered.  On the other hand, if the detention which those sections require and authorize is not so limited, the authority which they purportedly confer upon the Executive cannot properly be seen as an incident of the executive powers to exclude, admit and deport an alien. In that event, they will be of a punitive nature and contravene Ch III's insistence that the judicial power of the Commonwealth be vested exclusively in the courts which it designates."

    [186](1992) 176 CLR 1 at 28-29, 33.

    [187]See Blackstone, Commentaries, 17th ed (1830), bk 4 par 298.

    [188]See R v Richards; Ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 157; Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 at 626.

    [189]See R v Bevan; Ex parte Elias and Gordon (1942) 66 CLR 452; Re Tracey; Ex parte Ryan (1989) 166 CLR 518; Re Nolan; Ex parte Young (1991) 172 CLR 460; Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 at 626-627.

    [190]It is unnecessary to consider whether the defence power in times of war will support an executive power to make detention orders such as that considered in Little v The Commonwealth (1947) 75 CLR 94.

15. The next passage upon which the appellant relies should be set out[191]:

    "The powers of detention in custody which are conferred upon the Executive by ss 54L and 54N are limited by a number of significant restraints imposed by other provisions of Div 4B. Section 54Q effectively limits the total period during which a designated person can be detained in custody under Div 4B to a maximum total period of 273 days after the making of an application for an entry permit. For the purposes of that maximum period, time does not run while events beyond the control of the Department, such as delay in the supply of information or delay in court or tribunal proceedings, are preventing the finalization of the entry application. Section 54P(2) requires that a designated person be removed from Australia as soon as practicable after he or she has been in Australia for at least two months (or a longer prescribed period) without making an entry application. Section 54P(3) requires the removal of a designated person from Australia as soon as practicable after the refusal of an entry application and the finalization of any appeals against, or reviews of, that refusal. Those limitations upon the executive powers of detention in custody conferred by ss 54L and 54N go a long way towards ensuring that detention under those powers is limited to what is reasonably capable of being seen as necessary for the purposes of deportation or to enable an entry application to be made and considered. Nonetheless, in circumstances where the facts of the present case demonstrate that Div 4B could authorize detention in custody for a further 273 days of persons who had already been unlawfully held in custody for years before the commencement of the Division, those limitations would not, in our view, have gone far enough were it not for the provision of s 54P(1)."

    [191](1992) 176 CLR 1 at 33.

1. It is upon the next paragraph however that the appellant seeks to place the greatest emphasis[192]:

   "Ours is a Constitution 'which deals with the demarcation of powers, leaves to the courts of law the question of whether there has been any excess of power, and requires them to pronounce as void any act which is ultra vires'[193]. All the powers conferred upon the Parliament by s 51 of the Constitution are, as has been said, subject to Ch III's vesting of that judicial power in the courts which it designates, including this Court. That judicial power includes the jurisdiction which the Constitution directly vests in this Court in all matters in which the Commonwealth or a person being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth is a party[194] or in which mandamus, prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth[195].  A law of the Parliament which purports to direct, in unqualified terms, that no court, including this Court, shall order the release from custody of a person whom the Executive of the Commonwealth has imprisoned purports to derogate from that direct vesting of judicial power and to remove ultra vires acts of the Executive from the control of this Court. Such a law manifestly exceeds the legislative powers of the Commonwealth and is invalid. Moreover, even to the extent that s 54R is concerned with the exercise of jurisdiction other than this Court's directly vested constitutional jurisdiction, it is inconsistent with Ch III." (emphasis added)

   [192](1992) 176 CLR 1 at 36. See also at 10 per Mason CJ, 58 per Gaudron J, 65 and 71 per McHugh J.

   [193]R v Richards; Ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 157 at 165 per Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Williams, Webb, Fullagar, Kitto and Taylor JJ.

   [194]Constitution, s 75(iii).

   [195]Constitution, s 75(v).

2. It is the appellant's principal submission that if the conditions of his detention can be shown to be inhumane in fact, the detention is in substance punitive no matter how it is described, and indeed, regardless of any expressed purpose.  As to this, the respondents' argument should be accepted:  that the appellant's submission conflates two separate issues, of the unlawful authority to detain, on the one hand, and of the conditions within detention on the other.  The constitutional requirement of the exercise of judicial power by the judiciary is only infringed if the conferral of authority to detain does not fall within an exceptional class not of a punitive character.  The question whether the law authorizing detention (and saying nothing about the conditions of it) is reasonably capable of being seen as necessary for a legitimate purpose within the aliens power, cannot be concerned with a qualitative assessment of the conditions of detention.  It is concerned with the purpose of the law authorizing detention.

3. The appellant accepts that the Act and the detention under it do not deprive him of his right to sue in tort or to pursue other causes of action generally available to citizens and others in the community. Similarly, it may be that remedies would be available for infringement of, or failure to comply with, regulations or guidelines (if any) governing or affecting immigration detention. The Act certainly provides no charter for detention in brutal conditions[196].  As Gray J said[197] in his reasons, "[t]he custodians of detainees are legally accountable."

   [196]To the extent to which detention centres established under the Act are located in a Commonwealth place, State laws will be applied as Commonwealth laws by virtue of the operation of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth).

   [197]Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Behrooz (2002) 84 SASR 453 at 472 [70].

4. This Court has not been called upon to correct, or to compel compliance with any arrangements whether made by regulation or otherwise, for the humane detention of aliens.  This can be compared and contrasted with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bell v Wolfish[198] (a case of pre-trial detention) upon which the appellant relied.  There, the Court left open the possibility of habeas corpus to review and correct conditions of confinement in breach of constitutional guarantees of that nation, but not to permit release from detention.  The Court said[199]:

   "[t]the parties concede that to ensure their presence at trial, these persons legitimately may be incarcerated by the Government prior to a determination of their guilt or innocence ... it is the scope of their rights during this period of confinement prior to trial that is the primary focus of this case." (emphasis added)

   [198]441 US 520 (1979).

   [199]441 US 520 at 523 (1979).

5. It is unnecessary to decide the extent to which the reasoning and decision in that case were influenced by constitutional guarantees of that country of a kind not to be found in the Australian Constitution, and its jurisprudence in relation to them. The case here is of a quite different kind in any event. The appellant seeks to strike down, or at least read down, s 198 of the Act on constitutional grounds, for infringement of Ch III of the Constitution.

6. What was said by Lord Bridge of Harwick in R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison; Ex parte Hague, although a case of imprisonment by judicial order, is of some relevance here[200]:

   "... the proposition that the conditions of detention may render the detention itself unlawful raises formidable difficulties.  If the proposition be sound, the corollary must be that when the conditions of detention deteriorate to the point of intolerability, the detainee is entitled immediately to go free.  It is impossible, I think, to define with any precision what would amount to intolerable conditions for this purpose. ... The law is certainly left in a very unsatisfactory state if the legality or otherwise of detaining a person who in law is and remains liable to detention depends on such an imprecise criterion and may vary from time to time as the conditions of his detention change."

   [200][1992] 1 AC 58 at 165.

7. Conditions of detention cannot invalidate the grant and exercise of the power to detain in immigration detention.

8. I would also conclude that the summonses should be set aside on the ground of oppression as the meaning of that ground has been explained in The Commissioner for Railways v Small[201].  On their face the appellant seeks an enormous amount of material.  The width is breathtaking, for example:  any documents "which contain or refer to complaints or concerns about conditions in Woomera" or "contain concerns of or criticisms by [various bodies who have no authority under Australian law to prescribe conditions of detention in this country] regarding the conditions of detention at Woomera".  The summonses are imprecise in their terms.  What is sought goes far beyond what might legitimately be sought as part of, or even as leading to a train of inquiry.  The summonses are of a fishing nature.  They assume matters, for example that there are documents in existence in relation to, and that there have been or there should have been, programmes designed to meet the separate needs of the appellant and other detainees.  Having regard to their multiple deficiencies, it would not be for this Court to seek to salvage something from them that could properly be the subject of a valid summons.  For these further reasons the summonses should have been wholly set aside.

   [201](1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564 at 574-575 per Jordan CJ.

9. The appeal should be dismissed with costs.