Bethell v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 3)

The case of Bethell v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 3) involved Mr. Bethell, a citizen of the United Kingdom, who had entered Australia lawfully on a Temporary Work Visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). His visa was cancelled in 2016, and he was subsequently taken into immigration detention in 2019 after being released from prison. In February 2021, Mr. Bethell's bridging visa was cancelled, and he was returned to immigration detention. Mr. Bethell filed multiple applications for writs of habeas corpus, alleging unlawful detention, and sought other relief including an urgent injunction against deportation and compensation for alleged attempts to circumvent the Habeas Corpus Act. The primary legal issues in the case were whether Mr. Bethell's applications for writs of habeas corpus constituted an abuse of process, and whether the principle of res judicata applied to prevent reconsideration of the legality of his detention.

The Court found that Mr. Bethell's multiple applications for writs of habeas corpus constituted an abuse of process, as he had previously been determined not to be unlawfully detained by another judge. The Court considered the High Court's decision in Commonwealth of Australia v AJL20 [2021] HCA 21, which highlighted the serious nature of habeas corpus applications. The Court also determined that the principle of res judicata applied, as Mr. Bethell's claims had already been considered and determined by other judges of the Court. Therefore, the Court dismissed Mr. Bethell's applications for writs of habeas corpus and related relief. The Court also made an order for costs against Mr. Bethell, noting that costs typically follow the event and that it was appropriate to award costs in these circumstances.

The Court concluded that Mr. Bethell had not substantiated his claims for the issuance of writs of habeas corpus. Consequently, the Court rejected his claims for an urgent order against the Minister and compensation. The Court dismissed the applications before it in QUD 192 of 2021 and QUD 211 of 2021, with costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed. This decision underscores the importance of judicial economy and the prohibition against repeated litigation of the same issue.