Mohamed v MIAC & Anor

In *Mohamed v MIAC & Anor*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the lawfulness of the detention of the appellant, Mr. Mohamed, who was an asylum seeker. The dispute centred on whether Mr. Mohamed's detention was authorised by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and, if not, whether he was entitled to damages for unlawful detention.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (MIAC) had exercised the power to detain Mr. Mohamed in accordance with the *Migration Act*. Specifically, the Court had to consider the scope of the Minister's discretion to detain non-citizens who arrived in Australia without a visa and whether the detention was for the purpose of removing them from Australia, as required by the Act. A further issue was whether, if the detention was found to be unlawful, Mr. Mohamed was entitled to compensation for the period of his detention.

The Court reasoned that the power to detain under the *Migration Act* is not unfettered and must be exercised for the purposes specified in the legislation. Hayne and Crennan JJ found that the evidence did not establish that Mr. Mohamed's detention was for the purpose of removing him from Australia, as required by section 189(1) of the *Migration Act*. Consequently, his detention was unlawful. The Court applied the principle that detention of a person must be authorised by law, and where it is not, the person is entitled to damages for the tort of false imprisonment.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Federal Court, and remitted the matter to the Federal Court for determination of the quantum of damages to be awarded to Mr. Mohamed for his unlawful detention.