Keenan, D.R. v Minister of State for Immigration Local Government & Ethnic Affairs

Darlene Rowena Keenan, a citizen of New Zealand who had been convicted of a crime in Australia and served part of a sentence, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government, and Ethnic Affairs to deport her. The application was brought by her and her fiance, Geoffrey Roland Bunker. Keenan had been sentenced to eight years in prison for conspiracy to import cocaine in 1987 and was released on licence in 1989. She was given permission to travel to New Zealand for her grandfather's funeral on the condition that she return to Australia before a certain date. However, she was issued a border visa valid for only 30 days and was unaware of the legal implications of this visa. Upon her return to Australia, she was served with a deportation order. The Minister purported to act under section 6.60 of the Migration Act 1958, which allows for the deportation of illegal entrants. Keenan sought a stay of the deportation order pending the outcome of the judicial review.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Minister had the power to order Keenan's deportation under section 6.60 of the Act and whether the Minister had properly considered the matters prescribed in regulation 179 of the Migration Regulations. Keenan argued that the Minister should have considered the existence of an alternative power under section 6.55 of the Act, which provides a right of review, and that the Minister's failure to consider the prescribed matters under regulation 179 rendered the decision invalid. The Minister argued that the decision was lawful and that the applicant had not shown a serious issue to be tried or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the relationship between sections 6.55 and 6.60 of the Act and whether the Minister had properly considered the prescribed matters under regulation 179. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, as deportation would make it more difficult and expensive for Keenan to continue with the judicial review proceedings. The court granted a stay of the deportation order pending the outcome of the judicial review, with the condition that Keenan and Bunker notify the Minister if they change their place of address. The court also issued directions for the filing of amended applications and affidavits and for the Minister to file an affidavit setting out the material considered at the time of the decision.