Osman-Lloyd v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs

ADMINISTRA'IIVE LAW - immigratlon - vlsitors visas - Srl Lankan 'Iamlls - apprehended at alrport - s . 3 6 A Mlqratlon Act - visas cancelled - appllcatlon for entry permlts rcfused - notlce to airllne to return anpllcants to Srl Lanka - applicatlon for refugee status - appllcatlon refused - Mlnlsterlal pollcy re Srl Lankans - temporary entry contemplated for humanltarlan reasons - purported distinction between persons entering Australla and

persons held under s.36A - dlstinctlon not apparent

on face of

policy - serlous questlon that relevant factor 1n posslble appllcatlon of pollcy overlooked - rlsk of human rights violation if applicants compulsorily repatrlated - request from Unlted

Natlons Hlgh Commlssloner for refugees that appllcants not

returned because of danger to llves -

balance of convenience

favouring appllcants - interlocutory injunctlon granted.

Migration Act 1958

s.36A

Administrative Declslons (Judicial Review) Act 1977 s.5

Federal Court of Australla Act 1977 s.23

Faingold v Zammlt (1984) 1 FCR 87

PETER CHARLES OSMAN-LLOYD V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ETHNIC

AFFAIRS WAG 35 OF 1987

SHANMUGARAJAH SENATHIRAJAH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ETHNIC

AFFAIRS WAG 36 of 1987

MATHIRUBAN 'IHANENDRAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ETHNIC AFFAIRS

WAG 37 of 1987

ARULPRAGASAM AN'IHONIPILLAI V

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ETHNIC

AFFAIRS WAG 38 Of 1987

FRENCH J.

3 Aprll 1987

PERTH

I N THE FFDERAL COUFT

)

AUSTRALIA	OF	)
VESTERN AUSTRALIA	)

DISTRICT

REGISTRY

G E K E R A L

DIVISION

)

NO.

P!AG

3 5 Of

1 9 2 7

TVF

MATTER

a n A p p l l c a t i o n

f o r	Devlew
and

I N THE

MATTER

a n A p p l l c a t i o n

f o r a

S t a y p u r s u a n t

t o t h e

Administrative

D e c l s l o n s

(Judicial	R e v l e w )	Act	1 9 7 7
a s amended

B E T W E E N :

PETER

CHARLES

OSNAM-LLOYD

A p p l i c a n t

a n d

THE MINISTER FOR	IMMIGRATION	A N D
ETHNIC AFFAIRS

R e s p o n d e n t

MINUTE O F ORDER

J U D G E

M A K I N G

ORDER:

FRENCH

DATE OF ORDER:

3 APRIL 1987

WHERE

MADE :

P e r t h

THE

COURT

ORDERS

THAT:

T h e

r e s p o n d e n t

h l s

b y

a g e n t s ,

s e r v a n t s

a n d

o f f i c e r s

b e

a n d

1s h e r e b y

r e s t r a i n e d

u n t i l

the

d e t e r m l n a t l o n

t h e

a p p l l c a t i o n

u n t i l

f u r t h e r

o r d e r

from

d e l l v e r i n g

u p

t h e

a p p l i c a n t

t o

E l a l a y s l a n

A l r l i n e

S y s t e m s

f o r

e m o v a l

f rom

Australia.

2 .

2 . The resoondent by his agents, servants or offlcers be and 1s hereby restralned untll the determlnatlon of thls appllcatlon or until further order from removlng or taklnq any steps to remove the appllcant from Australia.

3 . There be liberty to apply.

4 . Costs reserved.

The appllcatlon is ad~ourned

for further dlrections to

7 Aprll 1987 at 11.45 am.

Note: Settlement and entry

of orders is dealt with In

Order 3 6 of the Federal Court

Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

)

AUSTRALIA

WESTEPN

4USTDALIA

DISTRICT

REGISTRY

)

GENERAL DIVISION

)

No.

WAG

3 6

1 9 3 7

THE

S A ' I T E R of

a n Application

f o r Review

anc?

THE MATTER o f a n

Application

for

S t a y p u r s u a n t

t o t h e

A d m l n l s t r a t 1 v e

Decis lons

( J u d i c i a l Revlew)	Act	1977
a s amended

B E T K E E N :

SNAKMUGARAJ4H SEMATHIRAJAH

A p p l i c a n t

a n d

THE MINISTER FOR	IMMIGRATION	AND
ETHNIC AFFAIRS

R e s p o n d e n t

MINUTE OF ORDER

J U D G E

M A K I N G

ORDER:

FRENCH

DATE

ORDER:

APRIL

1987

WHERE

MADE :

P e r t h

THE

COURT

ORDERS

THAT:

T h e

r e s p o n d e n t

h i s

b y

a g e n t s ,

s e r v a n t s

a n d

o f f i c e r s

b e

a n d

h e r e b y

r e s t r a l n e d

u n t l l

t h e

d e t e r m l n a t l o n

t h e

a p p l i c a t l o n

u n t i l

f u r t h e r

o r d e r

from

d e l i v e r i n g

u p

t h e

a p p l i c a n t

t o

M a l a y s l a n

A l r l l n e

S y s t e m s

f o r

removal

f r o m A u s t r a l i a .

2 .

T h e

r e s p o n d e n t

b y

h i s

a q e n t s ,

s e r v a n t s

o f f i c e r s

b e

and

hereby

r e s t r a i n e d u n t l l

t h e

deterrnlnat lon of

t h i s

a p p l i c a t i o n

o r

u n t i l

f u r t h e r

o r d e r

f r o m

r e m o v i n g

o r

t a k l n g

a n y

s t e p s

t o

r e m o v e

t h e

a p p l i c a n t

f r o m

A u s t r a l i a .

3 .

T h e r e

l i b e r t y

a p p l y .

4 .

Costs

r e s e r v e d .

5 .

T h e

a p p l l c a t l o n

a d l o u r n e d

€or f u r t h e r

d l r e c t l o n s

t o

A p r i l

1987 a t 1 1 . 4 5

am.

Note:

S e t t l e m e n t

a n d

e n t r y

o f

o r d e r s

d e a l t

w i t h

i n

Order 36 of t h e

F e d e r a l

C o u r t

R u l e s .

Ih' THE FEDFRAL COURT

)

O F	4[JSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTR4LIA DISTRICT RCGIS1-RY GENER4L DIVISION

)

No.

WAG 37 of 1987

I F THF

?lATTFR of

a n A p p l i c a t i o n

f o r Review

a n d

I N THE

MATTER

a n A p p l l c a t l o n

f o r a

S t a y

p u r s u a n t

t o t h e

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e

D e c i s l o n s

( J u d i c i a l

R e v l e w )

Act

1 9 7 7

a s amended

B E T W E E N :

MATHIRUBAN

THANENDRAN

A p p l i c a n t

a n d

THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION A N D

ETHNIC AFFAIRS

R e s p o n d e n t

MINUTE

ORDER

J U D G E

M A K I N G

ORDER:

FRENCH

J .

DATE

OF ORDER:

3 APRIL

1 9 8 7

WHERE

MADE :

P e r t h

THE COURT

ORDERS

THAT:

T h e

r e s p o n d e n t

h i s

b y

a g e n t s ,

s e r v a n t s

a n d

o f f i c e r s

b e

a n d

i s

h e r e b y

r e s t r a l n e d

u n t i l

t h e

d e t e r m i n a t l o n

t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n

u n t i l

f u r t h e r

o r d e r

from

d e l i v e r i n g

u p

t h e

a p p l i c a n t

t o

M a l a y s i a n

A i r l i n e

S y s t e m s

f o r

r e m o v a l

f r o m A u s t r a l i a .

2 .

T h e

r c s p o n d e n t

h i s

a g e n t s ,

s e r v a n t s

o r

o f f l c e r s

and

h e r e b y

restrained

u n t i l t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n

o f

t h l s

application

o r u n t i l

f u r t h e r

o r d e r

f r o m

r e m o v l n Z :

o r

t a k i n n

a n y

s t e p s

t o

r e m o v e

t h e

a p p l i c a n t

f r o m

A u s t r a l i a .

3 .

T h e r e

l i b e r t y t o a > p l y .

4 .

Costs

r e s e r v e d .

T h e

a p p l i c a t l o n

a d ~ o u r n e d

f o r

f u r t h e r d i r e c t i o n s

t o

A p r i l

1987 a t 1 1 . 4 5

am.

Note:

S e t t l e m e n t

a n d

e n t r y

o r d e r s

d e a l t

w i t h

i n

O r d e r

t h e

F e d e r a l

C o u r t

R u l e s .

IN THE FEDEPAL	COUPT	)
OF AUSTRALIA	)

\<€STERN

AUSTRALIA

)

DISTRICT

EGISTPY

)

GENERAL

DIVISION

No. WAG 3R

of 1 9 8 7

TK THE NATTER Of an Application

for Review

and

T K THE MATTER of an Applicatlon

€or a Stay pursuant to the

Administrative Declslons

(Judicial Review) Act 1977

as amended

B E T W E E N :

4RULPRAGASAN ANTHONIPILLAI

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

ETHNIC AFFAIRS

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	FRENCH J.
DATE OF ORDER:	3 APRIL 1 9 8 7

WHERE MADE

Perth

THE COURT ORDERS

THAT:

1 . The respondent by his agents, servants and officers be and is hereby restrained until the determination of the application or until further order from deliverlng up

the applicant to Malayslan Airline Systems

€or removal

from Australia.

2 .

2 . The respondent by h i 5 agents, servants or ofElcers be and 1s hereby restrained untll the determlnatlon of thls appllcatlon or untll further order Erom removlnq or

taking any steps to remove the appllcant from

Australia.

3 . There be liberty to apply.

4. Costs reserved.

The applicatlon 1s ad~ourned

for further dlrectlons to

7 April 1987 at 11.45 am.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt wlth in

Order 3 6 of the Federal Court Rules.

I)!

T H E

F E D E R A L

COUPT

)

OF AUSTRALIA

)

WESTERN

AIJSTRALIA

)

PISTRICT

REGISTPV

GENER4L

DIVISICN

I)! THE

MATTER

a n 4 n p l i c a t i o n

€or Review

and

I N THE

MATTER

a n A p p l i c a t i o n

f o r a

S t a y p u r s u a n t

t o t h e

4 d r n i n i s t r a t i v e

D e c i s i o n s

( J u d i c l a l

R e v i e w )

Act

1977

a s amended

MO. WAG 35 OF 1987

R E T W E E N :

PETER CHARLES

OSMAN-LLOYD

A p p l i c a n t

a n d

THE

MIE!ISTER

FOR

IMMIGRATION

AND

ETHNIC AFFAIRS

R e s p o n d e n t

NO. WAG 36 O f 1987

B E T W E E N :

SHANMUGARAJAH SENATHIRAJAH

A p p l i c a n t

a n d

THE MINISTER FOR	IMMIGRATION	AND
ETHNIC AFFAIRS

R e s p o n d e n t

NO. WAG 37 OF 1987

B E T W E E N :

MATHIRUBAM

THANENDRAN

Applicant

a n d

THE MINISTER FOR

IMMIGRATION

AND

E T H N I C

AFFAIRS

R e s p o n d e n t

2 .

t:O. WAG 39 of 1987

ARULPRAGASAK ~NTKONIPTLLAI

ADpllcant

and

THE I"I1UISTCR FOR	IMMIGRATION 4VD
ETHNIC AFFAIRS

Respondent

CORAM :

FRENCH J.

APRIL

1 9 8 7

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicants are Sri Lankan nationals of 'ram11 oriqln from the Jaffna District in the north of Sri Lanka.

On 25 March 1987 they arrlved at

Perth International

Airport aboard MAS Flight MH23.

Each had been issued

in Columbo with a vlsitor's visa

valld for one month. Such visas were evidently	issued under s.11.4
of the Migration Act 1958 .

Upon arrlval at Perth Airport they were each interviewed by an Offlcer of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for what is described in an Immigration InsDector's Report as "Assessment of Bona Fides".

The report describes what took place as follows:-

3 .

" O s m a n

L l o y d

a n d

A n t h o n i D i l l a l

s t a t e d

t h a t

t h e y

were

t r a v e l l i n a

t o q e t h c r b u t n o t

w i t h

t h e o t h e r

two

whom

t h e y

c l a i m c d

n o t

t o

k n o w .

S i m i l a r l y ,

S e n a t h i r a ] a h

a n d

T h a n e n d r a n

were

t r a v e l l l n a

t o g e t h e r

a n d

s t a t e d

t h a t

t h e v

d i d n o t

k n o w Osman

L loyd

nor

, \ n t h o n l p i l l a i .

E a c h p a l r

a p p r o a c h e d d i f f e r e n t

o r l m a r y

r a c e s .

P a s s e n g e r

c a r d s

p r e s e n t e d

b y

a l l

f o u r

g a v e

t h e

same

c o n t a c t

a n d

i n t e n d e <

a d d r e s s

i n

A u s t r a l i a .

T h e y

a l l

c l a i m e d

t h a t

7. A l a g a n d r e n

t h e i r

u n c l e

a n d

t h a t

h e

w o u l d

a t t h e a i r p o r t

t o meet

them.

The

c h e c k

i n t h e

a r r i v a l

a rea

o f

t h e

t e rmlna l

s h o w e d

t h a t

o n l y

one

S r i

L a n k a n

w a s

a w a i t i n q

Dassengers

o n

t h e

f l i g h t .

I n i t i a l l y

h e

r e f u s e d

t o

t a l k

t o me

b u t

h e n

q a v e

his

name

a s

S l v a n

P o n n a m b a l a n

a n d

h e

was

t o meet

Flr

Ranqan

o f € t h e

f l i g h t .

a l s o s a l d

h e

h a d

b e e n

i n

A u s t r a l i a

f o r

1 2

m o n t h s .

T h e

r e a s o n

a s k e d

h l m

t h i s w a s

b e c a u s e

r e c o q n i s e d

h i m ,

b y

a p p e a r a n c e

no t

t h e

name

g i v e n ,

a s

Sr i

L a n k a n

v i s i t o r

r e f u s e d

n t r y

a t

P e r t h

A i r p o r t

a p p r o x .

1 2 m t h s

a g o .

I t w a s

n o t e d

t h a t

h e

l e f t

h e

a i r p o r t

J u s t a f t e r

s p e a k i n g

t o me.

r a n g

t h e

D h O n e

n u m b e r

g i v e n

€o r

t h e

c o n t a c t

i n

V lc to r l a

( 3 0 6

9 7 0 1 )

a n d

s p o k e

t o lilr

A l a g a n d r e n .

s a i d

t h a t

h e

was

e x p e c t i n g

some

f r l e n d s

f r o m

S r i

L a n k a

n d

" n o "

h e

w o u l d

n o t

b e

m e e t i n g

t h e m

i n

P e r t h .

s u g g e s t e d	t h a t	I	t e l l	t h e m	t o	c a t c h	t h e	t r a l n	t o
M e l b o u r n e .

E a c h

PAX

h e l d

a n

o p e n

r e t u r n

t i c k e t

w i t h

M a l a y s i a n

f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f e x a c t l y

P e r t h / K L / C o l u m b o

was

and

I n

A i r l i n e s

t r a v e l

SUS500

i n

t r a v e l l e r s

c h e q u e s .

T h e v

were

i n d i v i d u a l l y

a s k e d

i f

t h e y w i s h e d

t o

l e a v e

t h e

c o n f i n e s

o f

t h e

a i r p o r t

a n d

e n t e r

A u s t r a l i a

t o

w h i c h

t h e y

a l l r e n l i e d

i n t h e

a f f i r m a t i v e .

T h e r e

was

l i t t l e

d o u b t

i n

o p i n i o n

t h a t

t h e s e

f o u r

p a s s e n g e r s

d i d

n o t

i n t e n d

o b l i g a t i n g

t h e

c o n d i t i o n s

o f

t h e i r

v i s i t o r

v l s a s .

T h e y

meet

e x a c t l y

t h e

p r o f i l e

o f

o t h e r

S r i

L a n k a n

v i s i t o r s

r e f u s e d

e n t r y

a t P e r t h

i n t h e

p a s t ,

e v i d e n c e

o f

r e l a t i v e s

t o

s u b s t a n t i a t e

t h e

r e a s o n

f o r a

V 1 2

v l s a c o u l d

n o t b e

c o n f i r m e d

a n d

f u n d s

were

n o t

c o n s i d e r e d

s u f f i c i e n t

f o r

t h e

p r o p o s e d

t r a v e l

a n d

d u r a t l o n o f s t a y .

I t was

n o t c o n s i d e r e d n e c e s s a r y

a t t h i s s t age

t o c o n t a c t

C o l u m b o

o f f i c e

t o

e s t a b l i s h

reasons

g i v e n

for

r e q u e s t i n g

t h e

visas.

Cases

r e f e r r e d

t o Mr

Graham

Broome

A D

C i t i z e n s h l p

a n d

C o n t r o l P e r t h ,

who

d i r e c t e d

t h a t e n t r y b e

r e f u s e d .

Thls decision was conveyed to the passenqers as were the reasons €or the declslon. They reitcratcd their

intention to depart	fron	4ustralia	fter	a short
holiday."

The

visitors

~ l s a s

issued to the anpllcants were then

cancelled pursuant to the provisions of s . l l B of the Mlqratlon Act

and arrangements were nadc to hole then at the airport terminal

untll the departure of the 5amu alrcraft on which they arrived.

Each

the applicants was then taken lnto custody

pursuant to s . 3 6 A ( 3 ) of the Act which provides:-

" ( 3 )

Where a person, not

being a person exempted, by

instrument under the hands of the Minister, from

the requirements of Dlvlsion l A , travels by

aircraft from a place outslde Australla to a

proclaimed airport has sought

and been refused an

entry permit at that alrport or at any other

alrport In Australia at which he has called I n the

course of that travel, he may, ~f an authorised

officer so directs, be taken into custody at that

first-mentioned alrport by an officer and kept In

such

custody,

elther

that

first-mentloned

airport or elsewhere, as an author~sed officer

dlrects

until such time

as he is removed from

Australla in accordance with sub-section (4) or

until

such

earlier

time

authorised

offlcer

L , '

directs."	g.
;z
'?
F
1%-
I*
:-

On the same	day, pursuant	o	sub-s.36A(4) of the Act,	' L c3
l$
>-

notices were issued to the Manager of Malaysian Airline Systems at

L 1 .f

Perth Alrport in respect of each	of the applicants. Sub-section
(4) provides:-

" ( 4 )

Where a person is taken into custody under

sub-section

(11, (2) or (3), an authorised officer

may, at any time within

48 hours after the person

5 .

is so taken lnto custody, b y notlce ~n writinq served on the master, owner, agent or charterer of the aircraft on whlch he travelled to Australla,

require the master, owner, acent or charterer	to
remove the person from Australla at no charge	to
the Commonwealth."

'There 1s an obllgatlon therebv cast upon

the reclplent

of the notice to comply wlth 1t an obllgatlon whlch 1s created by

) :-

)

A master, owner, agent or charterer on whom

requlrement has been served under sub-section ( 4 ) shall comply wlth the reoulrement wlthln the period of 7 2 hours commencing at the time when the

requirement

was

served

hlm or withln

such

further period as an authorlsed offlcer allows,

whether or not the person to whom the requlrement

relates 1s able or wllling to pay, or agrees to

pay, a charge in respect of hls removal from

Australla.

Penalty:

$2,000 ' '

In each case the notice issued speclfled a perlod of 7 2 hours from the date of service on 25 March 1 9 8 7 for compliance with its requirements.

On the same day Mr Henry Chrlstie, a solrc~tor

employed

by the

Legal Aid Commlsslon of Western Australia was Informed

the events relating to the

4 applicants and attended at Perth

wlth

speak

Internatlonal

Alrport

them.

... "

They Informed him that they had come to Australla from

Sri Lanka to escape persecutlon whlch they clalmed they were

This they said, was the true reason €or their coming to Australia and not for the reason which had apparently arounded the grant of their visitors visas namely to visit relatives.

The

applications

for

refuaee

status

were

immediately

referred to the Determination	o € Refugee Status Committee in
Canberra.

The time limited

for l lAS

to comply with the notices

~ s s u e d under s.36A(4)

was evidently extended to

1 April 1987

order that their applications mlght

be considered by the Committee

and

i f the outcome

that consideration and the consequent

ministerial decision were unfavourable, they could

be placed on an

MAS flight leaving Perth at 4.15 pm on 1 April 1987 for Columbo.

Statements were subsequently taken from each of

the

applicants and sent by facsimile to the Committee in Canberra.

In the meantime

applications for review

under the

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 were lodged on

l April 1987 and claims for interlocutory rellef in respect of

each of the applicants, brought on before me

as a matter of

urgency at 2.30 pm on that day.

At that time the outcome of the

DORS Committee consideration of their applications was unknown.

It is suff icient for present purposes to	say that on	-
..
L.

that initial hearing I made short term holding

orders as follows:-

1. That Mr Henry Glblett an authorlsed offlcer of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affalrs do extend the perlod wlthin which the alrllne, Yalaysian Airline Systems, nay comply wlth the

requlrement embodled ln the notice dated

2 5 March

1987 issued pursuant to s u S - s . 3 6 A ( 4 ) of the Mlqration Act by Mr Malcolm Rlchardson to nidnlqht on Saturday, 4 April 1987.

2 .

The respondent be and

1 s hereby restralned from

delivering

the

applicant un to Malaysian Airline

System f o r removal from Australia before 5 pm on Friday 3 April 1987 or such other tlme as the Court may subsequently order.

3 .

The motlon be ad~ourned

to 4 pm on Thursday 2 April

1987.

4 . Costs of today’s appearance reserved.

The matter then came

on again at 4 pm on 2 April 1987.

At that time there had been filed on behalf of each of the apgllcants, an affidavit sworn by Mr Christie their solicitor and an affidavit sworn by Mr Henry Arthur Giblett, the officer In charge of the Control Section for the Department of Immigration and Ethnlc Affalrs in Perth. There had also been previously filed an affidavit by Lucie Ellzabeth Robinson the Refugee Co-ordinator for Amnesty International in Perth.

The DORS Committee on 1 April 1987 recommended against

the grant of refugee status to any of the applicants.

The declsion It was said, was

taken:-

“....following conslderation of detailed advice and information available to the Committee concerning the

general situation prevailinq in Sri Lanka and your known particular c~rcumstances in that country as they related

to your c l a m for refugee status."

The Minister's

delegate

endorsed

the Committee's

recommendation and agreed that the application for refugee status

in Australia be refused.

The Director of Legal Aid of the Legal Aid Commission of Western Australia on 2 April sent

by facsimile a letter to

the

respondent in Canberra in the following terms:-

" I act for the abovenamed and I have been informed that

their

appllcations

for

refugee

status

have

been

considered and refused.

Klndly

his

letter

appeal

from

that

decision.

I am obtaining further information

in support of their

applications for refugee status

and in particular in

clarification of the statements

contained

in the

D.O.R.S. interviews and I hope to be able to provide such further evidence and submissions in support within

14 days or within such

further time as you allow."

He also wrote on

the same day to the Officer in Charge

of the Entry Branch of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic

Affairs in Perth in the followlng terms:-

" I act for the abovenamed who, as Sri Lankan nationals

of Tamil ethnic origin, seek entry into Australla In order to c l a m the status o € refugees because of their fear of persecution and of danger to their lives in Sri Lanka.

Although I have been informed

that their

initial claim

€or refugee status has been refused by the D.O.R.S.

Commlttee an apzeal has

been lodqed from that decision

as per the enclosed letter and accordinglv application

is made on their behalf for Entry Permlts into Australia

in order that they may be landed in Australia and that thelr appeal from the orlglnal D . O . R . S . Conmlttee declsion can be properly heard."

When the matter came on before me

at 4 pm on 2 April

1987 no response had been recelved to that letter.

The declslons

of whlch review 1s now sought under

the

amended application are said to be the following:-

"1. The decision of the Minister for Immiqration

and

Ethnic Affairs that the Applicant be refused an

entry permit on his arrival

in Australla pursuant

to Section 6 of the Mlgratlon Act.

2 . The decision of the Mlnister for Immlgration and Ethnic Affalrs that the Appllcant be refused an

entry permit pursuant to Section

of the Act

followlng the Appllcant's arrival in Australia and

after

the

Applicant

had made

application

for

acceptance as having the status of refugee.

3. The decision of the Minlster for Immigration and Ethnic Affalrs that the Applicant be prevented from entering Australla pursuant to Section 35 of the Act.

4 .

The

further

decision

the Minister for

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that

the Applicant

be prevented from entering Australia pursuant to Section 35 of the Act after the Applicant had made applicatlon for refugee status.

The decision of the Minister for Immigration

and

Ethnic Affairs that Malaysian Alrline Systems be required to remove the Applicant from Australia pursuant to Section 36A of the Act.

The

further

decision

the Minister

for

Immlgratlon and Ethnic

Affairs

made

after

the

Applicant had made

application

for

refugee

status that Malaysian Airline Systems be required to remove the Applicant from Australia pursuant to Section 36A of the Act.

10.

4 N D

rURTFIER

t h e

A D p l i c a n t

a p p l i e s

t o

t h e

C o u r t

f o r

a n

O r d e r

R e v l e w

l n

r e s p e c t

o f

t h e

f a i l u r e

t h e

R e s p o n d e n t

t o make

dec i s lon

following

t h e

A p p l i c a n t ' s

r e q u e s t

m a d e

o n

A D r l l

1 9 8 7

f o r

t e m p o r a r y

E n t r y

Permlt

t o e n a b l e

t h e

A p p l l c a n t

t o

b e

l a n d e d

I n

A u s t r a l l a

t h a t h l s a p p e a l

f r o m

t h e

o r i g i n a l

d e c i s i o n

r e f u s l n q

h i s

r e f u g e e

s t a t u s

can

b e

p r o p e r l y

h e a r d . "

T h e

o n l y

d e c ~ s i o n s

o f

which

t h e r e

is a t

t h e

moment

any

r e a l

e v l d c n c e

b e f o r e

me,

a r e

those

m e n t i o n e d

i n

p a r a g r a p h s

1 ,

a n d

I n

r e s p e c t

e a c h

a p o l i c a n t .

I t

I n

r e l a t i o n

t o

t h e s e

d e c l s l o n s

t h a t

w ~ l l

c o n s l d e r

t h e

a p p l i c a n t s '

clalms

f o r

i n t e r l o c u t o r y r e l i e f .

I t

1 s

n o t

c o n t e s t e d

f o r

p r e s e n t

p u r p o s e s

t h a t

t h e

decisions a r e decisions

t o which

t h e

A d m l n i s t r a t i v e

D e c i s i o n s

( J u d i c i a l

R e v i e w )

Act

a p p l l e s

n o r

t h a t

t h e

a p p l l c a n t s

are

a g g r i e v e d p e r s o n s

i n

r e l a t i o n

t o

them.

T h e

g r o u n d s

u p o n

w h i c h

t h e y

s e e k

~ u d l c l a l

revlew

o f

t h e

decls&Qn-..are

se t o u t i n

t h e

a m e n d e d

a p p l l c a t l o n

a s

f o l l o w s : -

" T h a t

t h e

m a k l n g

t h e

d e c i s i o n s

were

a n

i m p r o p e r

e x e r c i s e

o f

t h e

p o w e r

c o n f e r r e d

b y

t h e

Migratlon

Act

i n t h a t

t h e

R e s p o n d e n t

o r

a n o f f i c e r o f h i s

D e p a r t m e n t

f a l l e d

t o

t a k e

r e l e v a n t

c o n s i d e r a t l o n s

l n t o a c c o u n t

i n t h e

exerclse

o f

t h e

power namely -

( i ) t h e

a g r e e m e n t

m a d e

t h e

C o m m o n w e a l t h

o f

.~ - --

I-i ,..-

Australia a t

t h e

r e q u e s t

t h e

U n l t e d

N a t l o n s

. .

H i g h

C o m m i s s i o n

f o r

R e f u g e e s

n o t

t o

require

. I

t h e

r e t u r n

L a n k a n

S r i

n a t l o n a l s

o f

Tamil

ethnic

o r i g i n

f r o m

A u s t r a l l a

t o

S r i

L a n k a

a g a i n s t

t h e i r

w i l l

s a v e

I n

e x c e p t i o n a l

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

a n d

u n t i l

t h e

c o n d i t i o n s

I n

S r i

L a n k a

Ear

a s

t h e y a p p l y

t o

p e r s o n s o f

T a m i l

e t h n i c o r i g l n

improve:

(il) the policy of

the Respondent to permlt Sri

Lankan nationals

of 'lam11 ethnic oriqin who

have made clalms for refu(qee status to remain In Australia on a temporary basis pending an Improvement in the conditions in Sri Lanka save in excentional circumstances:

(iiilthat the e€fect of

refusinq the Appllcant's

entry into Australia wlll be to force his return to Srl Lanka where he faces the immediate prospect of imprisonment, detention

without trial, death or other severe hardship;

(iv) that the

Applicant

has not been given the

opportunity by reason of tlme to further present his appllcation for refugee status to

the

authority

recoanised

Australia

determining such

application

namely

the

D . O . R . S .

Committee

and

the Applicant has not

been given the opportunlty of appeal for the reconsideration of the decision to refuse him refugee status;

(v) the hardshlp already suffered by the Applicant prior to his arrival in Australia."

The applicants also claim that

by holding them in

custody away from Perth International Airport pending a decision from the DORS Committee, the respondent has allowed them to enter Australia from where they can only removed by a deportation order pursuant to s.18 of the Migration Act.

Thls ground relies on the fact that the applicants were

for a tlme kept in custody in Fremantle Prison pending the

determination of their applications for refugee status.

However s.36A(8) of the Act provides:-

"A person shall not, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have entered Australia by reason only of his

1 2 .

b e i n g

t a k e n

from

p r o c l a i m e d

a i r p o r t

f o r

t h e

p u r p o s e

b e l n o

k e p t

I n

c u s t o d v

a t

p l a c e

o u t s i d e

proclaimcd

a 1 r D o r t

i n p u r s u a n c e

O E

s u b s e c t l o n

( l ) ,

( 2 ) o r

(31 . ' '

t h e f a c e

o f

i t

t h e r e f o r e ,

t h e

q r o u n d

does

n o t

a p p e a r

t o

r a l s e

a n y

s e r i o u s

q u e s t i o n

f o r

d e t e r m i n a t i o n .

llor

w a s

i t

p r e s s e d

w l t h a n y conviction

i n a r q u m e n t

f o r

t h c a p p l i c a n t s .

O f

i m p o r t a n c e

t h e

q u e s t i o n

t h e

p r o p e r

a p p l i c a t i o n

t h e m i n i s t e r i a l

p o l l c y

r e l a t l n q

t o t h e way

i n

w h i c h

S r l

L a n k a n

p e r s o n s

i n

A u s t r a l i a

c l a i m i n g

r e f u g e e

s t a t u s

s h o u l d

b e

d e a l t

w i t h .

T h i s

t h e

m a t t e r

w h l c h

r a i s e d

u n d e r

t h e

q r o u n d

(11 ) .

T h e

o n l y

e v i d e n c e

t h e

o f

p o l i c y

b e f o r e

was

D e p a r t m e n t a l

Instruction

h e a d e d

" S r i

L a n k a n

Case

M a n a g e m e n t "

t h e

t e x t of

which

was

a s

f o l l o w s : -

" T h e

f o l l o w i n g

p o l i c y

g u l d a n c e

p r o v l d e d

i n

r e s p e c t

S r i

L a n k a n

c a s e s

p r e s e n t i n g

a t

R e g i o n a l

a n d

Area

O f f i c e s

i n

A u s t r a l i a .

Amended

g u i d e l i n e s

a r e

a l s o

b e l n g

p r e p a r e d

f o r

o v e r s e a s

p o s t s :

t h e s e

will

f o r w a r d e d

t o

y o u

l n f o r m a t i o n

when

a v a i l a b l e .

2 .

T h e

p o l i c y

h a s

b e e n

e n d o r s e d

b y

t h e

Minlster

a n d

f o l l o w s

c o n s u l t a t i o n

b e t w e e n

E n t r y

R e g u l a t l o n ,

T e m p o r a r y

E n t r y

a n d

I n s t r u c t i o n s ,

a n d

R e f u g e e s

a n d

H u m a n i t a r i a n

B r a n c h e s .

T h e

M l n i s t e r

h a s

d l r e c t e d

t h a t

h e

DORS

Committee

limit

its

r e c o m r n e n d a t l o n s ,

I n

r e s p e c t

S r i

L a n k a n

c a s e s ,

t o

t h e

r e f u g e e

s t a t u s

c l a l m

t h e

b a s i s

t h a t

D I E A ~111:-

d r a w

t o

t h e

a t t e n t i o n

a l l

r e ~ e c t e d

a u u l i c a n t s

t h e

D r o v i s i o n s

S 6 A ( l ) ( e )

o f

t h e

N i b r a t i o n

A c t '

1958

a n d

a t t e n d a n t

r e v i e w

mechan i sms

1 3 .

DORS Secretarlat will

despatch replies to

applicants and cony to Feoional OEflces

- Section 6A(1)

(e)

change

of status

anplications by Srl Lankans are to be

handled wlthin the reqlons: querles on

partlcular aspects of any case nay be

dlrected to Refugees and Humanitarian

Branch

-	a l l appllcat~ons for resident status fron
Srl Lankans to be treated sympathetlcally cn a case by case basis

- approval

wou d

be dependent on

appllcants' having a demonstrable ba51s

for their fear of return eg ethnlclty or

suffering as c7 result of communal

violence. (Decision maklnq mlght be zssiste:d bv general reference to overseas

practice.) Further guidance will be

forwarded

to you shortly

-	G months temporary entry permits would be
appropriate

- permission to work may be granted

dependlng

the

individual

circumstances.

While

the

m a ~ o r i t y

of Sri Lankan applicants are

likely to be

of 'Tan11 ethnicity, other ethnlc

groups from Sri Lanka are	not	outside	these
arrangements.
Normal processlng fees apDly.

To avoid any legal problems It is necessary for any

Sri Lankans wishing to continue temporary stay in

Australia, and able to

demonstrate a case

remain, to be in possession of a valid temporary entry permit. Fallure to validate stay could have

the effect of brlnging the individual

within the

purview of the Minister's pollcy

statement on

illegal immigrants a5 tabled In Parliament on 17

October 1985.

All existing

deportatlon

orders

Srl Lankan

natlonals are to be reviewed.

- Action

relatlon

Srl Lankan

prohibited

non citizens

to be decided by Regional

Director agalnst

the Government's concern at

the human rights sltuation

in Sri Lanka.

- It is envlsaged

that

deportation

would

ensue

in circumstances,

such

as,

crminality

other

activities

incompatible wlth

elther

Australian

community

standards

national

security concerns.

14.

3 . Queries on Dartlcular issues may bc directed to Enforcement Sectlon	or DOPS Secretariat, Canberra, as
approprlate."

The text of the volley as reported in the lnstruction 1s

not distinguished by clarltv of expression.

What it seems to contemplate is that temporary entry

?errnits for a period of 6 months may be granted to Srl Lankan nationals whose claim for refugee status has been relected, such permits being granted under para.6A(l)(e) of the Miqration Act which provides:-

"An entry permit shall not

be granted to a non-citizen

after hls entry Into Australia unless one or other of the following conditions is fulfllled In respect of him,

that is to say

(e)

he is the holder of a temporary entry permit

whlch is in force and there

are

strong

compassionate or humanitarlan grounds for the

grant of an entry permit to him."

The

policy

evidently

reflects

recognltion

the

Executlve of the current level of clvll strife In Sri Lanka, particularly as lt affects persons of Tamll origin.

It is not for me in an application for ~udlcial

review,

to substitute my own views for those of the Executive as to the particular risks to these applicants should they be returned to

Sri Lanka.

15.

I consider however that ln

determining whether the

balance of convenlence favours the grant of lnterlocutory relref, I can have regard to thc hazards that mlght face them I € repatriated without havlng fully tested the proprlety of the declslon maklng process by which the respondent would seek to return them to Srl Lanka.

Some indlcatlon of those

hazards

1s garnered from

materlals prepared by Amnesty Internatlonal and exhibited

to the

affldavlt of

L u c ~ e

Ellzabeth Roblnson flled In these proceedings.

Included among then is a statement of opposition by Amnesty to refoulment of Tamils to Srl Lanka sald to be grounded on the belief that "Tamlls forclble (slc) repatriated to Sri Lanka

face a substantlal rlsk of becoming vlctlms of human rights

vlolations" .

The statement of opposltlon is dated 20 February 1987.

Glven that the balance of convenlence would on that

basis favour the grant

of interlocutory rellef, the questlon

whether there 1s any serious questlon to

be tried.

I bear ln mlnd that the legislatlve policy

s . 3 6 A

under which the appllcants are presently being held must	be
respected.

16.

I t

n o t

f o r

t h l s C o u r t

t o

a p p l v

t h e

A d m l n l s t r a t l v e

Declslons

(Judicial

F e v l e w )

Act

In s u c h a

way

a s t o i n t e r f e r e w l t h

t h e

l e q l s l a t l v e

l n t e n t l o n

a s e x p r e s s e d

I n t h a t

p r o v l s l o n .

t h e F u l l C o u r t

s a l d of

I t

I n

F a l n q o l d v

Z a m m l t

( 1 9 8 4 )

1 FCR 87 a t 93: -

"\:e emphasise t h a t

t h e

t lme tab le

p r o v i d e d

t h e s e c t l o n

r e q u l r e s a c t l o n

t h e most

e x p e d i t i o u s k l n d . "

N e v e r t h e l e s s

t h e

e c t l o n

a t t r a c t s

t h e

e x e r c i s e

o f

d i s c r e t l o n s

a n d

t h e s e

d i s c r e t i o n s

m u s t

e x e r c i s e d

h a v l n g

r e g a r d

t o	r e l e v a n t c o n s 1 d e r a t l o n s .

c L

too m u s t

t h e

d l s c r e t l o n

t o

I s s u e

o r

r e f u s e

t h e

i s sue

. ...~

o f

e n t r y

p e r m i t

u n d e r

s . 6 A

t h e

Act.

' I

I n

t h i s

case t h e

M l n l s t e r l a l

p o l i c y

e x p r e s s e d

I n

t h e

Departmental

I n s t r u c t i o n

a l r e a d y

r e f e r r e d

t o

d o e s

n o t

a s

e x p r e s s e d ,

a p p e a r

t o

d r a w

a n y

distinction

b e t w e e n

S r i

L a n k a n s

a p p l y l n g

f o r

r e f u g e e

s t a t u s b e f o r e

a f t e r e n t r y

i n t o A u s t r a l i a .

Yet

a s a p p l l e d

i n t h i s case ,

t h e

d e p a r t m e n t a l

o f f i c e r s

c o n c e r n e d

seem

t o h a v e

p r o c e e d e d

o n

t h e b a s i s

t h a t

t h e p o l l c y

w h i c h

o n t e m p l a t e s

t h e

g r a n t

t e m p o r a r y

e n t r y

permits

t o

u n s u c c e s s f u l

a p p l l c a n t s

f o r

r e f u g e e

s t a t u s ,

d o e s

n o t

a p p l y

t o

L .-

p e r s o n s who

a r e

h e l d

i n

c u s t o d y u n d e r

s . 3 6 A o f

t h e

Act.

17 .

C o u n s e l

f o r

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

s u q q e s t e d

t h a t

t h e

p o l i c y

d l d

or was

i n t e n d e d

t o make

t h e

d i s t l n c t l o n .

I f

i t does,

t h e n i t 1s a

d l s t i n c t i o n w h i c h

does

n o t

a p p e a r

t o h a v e a n v

r a t i o n a l b a s l s .

For

i f

l i m i t e d ,

t h e

p o l i c y

w o u l d

f a v o u r

t h e

p e r s o n

who

s u c c e s s f u l l y

e v a d e s

d e t e c t i o n

t o

e n t e r

A u s t r a l i a

n d

b e c o m e s

p r o h l b i t e d

n o n - c i t l z e n .

T h e

S r i

L a n k a n

who

comes

s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y

b y

b o a t

a n d

l a n d s

u n d e t e c t e d

o n

A u s t r a l i a n

s h o r e s

b u t

l a t e r

d e t e c t e d

a n d

a p p r e h e n d e d ,

would

a p p e a r

t o

a b l e

t o

i n v o k e

t h e

p o l l c y .

His

l u c k l e s s

c o m p a t r i o t

a r r i v l n g

w i t h o u t

c o n c e a l m e n t

o n

r e g u l a r

c o m m e r c l a l

f l i g h t

a n d

a p p r e h e n d e d

u n d e r

s . 3 6 R

w o u l d

n o t .

T h e

d i s t i n c t i o n

a s

i l l u s t r a t e d

was,

u n d e r s t o o d

i t ,

m a i n t a i n e d

c o u n s e l

f o r

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t .

a m n o t

s a t i s f i e d

o n

t h e

ma te r i a l s

b e f o r e

m e

t h a t

t h e

p o l i c y

i s

I n t e n d e d

t o h a v e

t h e

e f f e c t

c o n t e n d e d

f o r .

T h a t

mat te r

however

wh lch

may

r e q u l r e

t h e

i l l u m l n a t l o n o f

f u r t h e r

e v i d e n c e .

For

p r e s e n t

p u r p o s e s ,

o f

t h e

v i e w

t h a t

s e r ious

q u e s t i o n

r a i s e d

w h e t h e r

t h e

p o l l c y

o u g h t

t o

h a v e

b e e n

t a k e n

I n t o

account

b y

t h e

o f f l c e r s

o f

t h e

d e p a r t m e n t

a n d

t h e

r e l e v a n t

d e l e g a t e

a s a

f a c t o r

r e l e v a n t

t o t h e

g r a n t

an e n t r y permit and

t h e exerc ise o f

t h e

p o w e r s

u n d e r

s . 3 6 A .

18.

I therefore intend to grant interlocutory relief in this

matter. The grant I think may be authorised by s . 1 5 of the Judlcial Review Act in relation to the declsions under s . 3 6 A and otherwise by s .23 of t h e Federal Court of Auetralla 4ct.

I hereby certify that thls and

the preceding seventeen ( 1 7 ) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for

Judqment herein of his	Honour Mr
Justice French.

Associate: ydi	-
Date :

Counsel :

. for the applicants: Mr H.N.H.

Christie

instructed by Legal Aid Commission

. for the Respondent: MS. C. Francas

instructed by Australlan Government Solicitor

Date of

Hearing:

2 April 1 9 8 7

Date of Judgment:

3 April 1987

It!

THE

F E D E R A L

C O U P T

O F

A U S T f i A L I A

)

W E S T E R N

A I J S T

A L I A

)

D I S T R I C T

R E G I S

R Y

D I V I S I Q E I

G t N T R 4 L

)

IN THr €or P e v i e w	MATTER of a n A p 9 l l C a t l O n
and

I N T H E

N A T T E R

a n A p p l i c a t i o n

€o r a

S t a y

D u r s u a n t

t o

t h e

A d m i n i s t r a t l v e

D e c i s l o n s

(Judicial

R e v l e w )

A c t

1 9 7 7

a s	a m e n d e d

NO.	WAG 35 O F 1987

B E T W E E N:

P E T E R

C H A R L E S

O S M A N - L L O Y D

A p p l l c a n t

a n d

T H E

M I N I S T E R

F O R

I M M I G R A T I O N

E T H N I C	A F F A I R S
R e s p o n d e n t

NO. WAG 36 O f 1987

B E T W E E N :

S H A N M U G A R A J A H

S E N A T H I R A J A H

A p p l i c a n t

and

T H E

M I N I S T E R

F O R

I M M I G R A T I O N

A N D

E T H N I C	A F F A I R S
R e s p o n d e n t

NO. WAG 37 OF 1987

B E T W E E N :

MATHIRUBAN

THANENDRAN

A p p l i c a n t

and

T H E

M I N I S T E R

F O R

I M M I G R A T I O N

A N D

E T H N I C

A F F A I R S

R e s p o n d e n t

2 .

NO.	l7AG 3 8 of 1987

4RVLPR4GAS4M A\'TAOMIPILLAI

A p p l i c a r r t

and

TFiE ?jIKTSTER FOR TV>!IGF?ATION APID

FTRYIC AFFAIRS

R e s p o n d e n t

CORRIGENDA

Amendment

t o

t h e

F e a s o n s

for J u d g m e n t of

His

Honour

J u s t l c e

F r e n c h

d e l l v e r e d

A p r i l

1 9 8 7 .

Delete

" C o l u m b o "

a n d

i n s e r t

" C o l o m b o "

P a g e

l i n e 15

P a g e

l l n e s 28

a n d

4 2

P a g e

l l n e 1 2

Associate

t o

J u s t l c e

F r e n c h

[1987] FCA 166

3 Apr 1987