Commonwealth v Rutledge

The Commonwealth of Australia (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had granted a writ of habeas corpus to the respondent, Mr. Rutledge. The dispute concerned the validity of Mr. Rutledge's detention under a warrant issued by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, pursuant to section 6 of the *Immigration Act 1901* (Cth).

The High Court was required to determine whether the Attorney-General had acted *ultra vires* in issuing the warrant for Mr. Rutledge's detention. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Attorney-General had a duty to inform himself of the facts and circumstances relevant to the exercise of his power under section 6, and whether the warrant was invalid due to a failure to do so, or due to an improper exercise of discretion.

The Court held that the Attorney-General, in exercising the power conferred by section 6 of the *Immigration Act*, was not bound to follow any particular procedure or to inform himself of specific facts. The power was discretionary, and the Court would not inquire into the reasons for its exercise unless there was evidence of bad faith or improper purpose. The issuance of the warrant was presumed to be valid, and the burden was on the respondent to prove otherwise. The Court found that Mr. Rutledge had failed to discharge this burden.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales granting the writ of habeas corpus, and ordered that Mr. Rutledge be returned to custody.