Bethell v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The matter of Bethell v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs concerned an application for a writ of habeas corpus and interlocutory injunctive relief by the applicant, Bethell, against the Minister, who proposed to remove him from Australia. Bethell was detained as an unlawful non-citizen under section 189 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The application sought to restrain his removal, claiming there was a serious question to be tried regarding the non-satisfaction of the requirements of section 189. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was a serious question to be tried that justified the granting of interlocutory injunctive relief to restrain Bethell's removal. Additionally, the court considered whether the present interim application was distinguishable from previous similar applications made before other judges, particularly in light of the Full Court judgment in Vasiljkovic v The Honourable Brendan O’Connor (No 2) [2011] FCAFC 125. The court also examined if the proceeding was an abuse of process due to its similarity to previous proceedings.

The court found that there was no serious question to be tried regarding the non-satisfaction of the requirements of section 189, as no such indication had been made. The court held that the present interim application was not distinguishable from previous similar applications and that it was for like relief on the same facts as those proceedings. Consequently, the application for interlocutory injunctive relief was dismissed as an abuse of process. The court ordered that no further applications for interlocutory injunctive relief be accepted without leave, and the proceedings be heard together with another related proceeding.

The final orders of the court were that the application for interlocutory injunctive relief be dismissed, no further applications be accepted without leave, the proceedings be heard together with another related proceeding, and the costs of and incidental to the application be costs in the cause.