EZ (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth of Australia

In the case of EZ (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth of Australia, the applicant, EZ, sought a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Queensland, challenging their detention as an unlawful non-citizen. The Commonwealth, represented by the Attorney-General, opposed the application on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over matters relating to migration decisions. The central legal issue was whether the Supreme Court had the authority to entertain the applicant's habeas corpus application, given that federal law restricts federal court jurisdiction over migration decisions to specific courts. The court had to determine whether an application for habeas corpus constitutes a matter 'in relation to a migration decision', and if the intermediate appellate court's ruling that it does not should be followed.

The court considered the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, alongside the decision in McHugh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The court examined the reasoning of the intermediate appellate court, which held that an application for a writ of habeas corpus was not a matter 'in relation to a migration decision' and found that decision not to be plainly wrong. It further applied the principles from Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, affirming the importance of deference to the expertise of the migration authorities and the separation of powers.

Consequently, the Supreme Court found that it had jurisdiction to determine the application for a writ of habeas corpus. The reasoning hinged on the conclusion that the intermediate appellate court's interpretation of the scope of migration-related jurisdiction was not manifestly erroneous, and therefore, the application could proceed. The court's decision allowed the habeas corpus application to be heard, despite the Commonwealth's contention to the contrary. The final orders of the court remain to be detailed in the judgment, but they would likely include the issuance of the writ and the scheduling of a hearing to determine the merits of the application.