Pirkhoohi v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor

In the High Court of Australia, Mr. Abdolah Shiekhi Pirkhoohi (the plaintiff) sought various forms of relief against the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the defendants). The plaintiff, an unlawful non-citizen from Iran, applied for constitutional writs of habeas corpus and prohibition to secure his release from immigration detention, an injunction to prevent his continued detention or restraint, and writs of mandamus to compel the defendants to make a determination under s 197AB(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) that he reside within the community. The defendants contended that the plaintiff's application lacked an arguable basis and should be dismissed.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's detention in Australia was unlawful, considering his transfer from Papua New Guinea for medical treatment and his subsequent detention. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the plaintiff's detention imposed an inappropriate level of restraint, whether it was for a permissible purpose, and whether he was brought to Australia under duress. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the plaintiff's claim for mandamus, including whether the defendants were under a duty to make a residence determination and whether there was an apprehension of bias on the part of the Minister.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application pursuant to rule 25.09.1 of the *High Court Rules 2004* (Cth), finding that it did not disclose an arguable basis for the relief sought. The court reasoned that the circumstances of detention under the *Migration Act* do not affect its legality, and the plaintiff's medical issues and the COVID-19 pandemic did not render his detention unlawful. The court also found no evidentiary basis to support the contention that the plaintiff was brought to Australia under duress, noting that the manner of his arrival was irrelevant to the legality of his continued detention. Regarding the mandamus claim, the court held that the exercise of power under s 197AB(1) is non-compellable under s 197AE of the Act, meaning the Minister has no duty to consider or exercise this power. Finally, the court rejected the apprehension of bias argument, stating that a decision-maker forming a view before exercising a power does not, in itself, render a decision voidable for apprehended bias.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that the plaintiff's application be dismissed and that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the application.