Unlugenc, Ali v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs

[1982] FCA 326

b3 -8

CATCEWORD S

Immigration - prohibi ted immigrant - dec i s ion of Min i s t e r

t o d e p o r t - depor tee he ld in cus tody pending depor ta t ion .

Adminis t ra t ive Law - a p p l i c a t i o n f o r release from custody

pend ing f i na l de t e rmina t ion o f app l i ca t ion fo r an o rde r	of
review - d i s c r e t i o n of	Court - matters t o be considered -
po l i cy of	Migrat ion A c t .

Federal Court of A u s t r a l i a - source and n a t u r e of power t o

g r a n t i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n s t o	release	depor tee	from
custody.

Adminis t ra t ive Decis ions ( Judic ia l Review) A c t 1 9 7 7 s s . 5 , 13

Migration A c t 1 9 5 8 s s . 6, 3 8 , 3 9

Federal Court o'f A u s t r a l i a A c t 1 9 7 6 ss . 1 9 , 2 3 .

NO. G 134 O F 1 9 8 2

LOCWART J.

AT SYDNEY

F R I D A Y 13 AUGUST 1 9 8 2

..

I N THE FEDEiiAL	COURT	O F AUSTRALIA	)
1

NEW SOUTH	WALES	D I S T R I C T	R E G I S T R Y	)	NO.	G	134 O F 1982
GENERAL	D I V I S I O N

BETWEEN :  A L I UNLUGENC

Appel lant

AND :  THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

AND ETHNIC A F F A I R S

Respondent

ORDERS

JUDGE MAKING ORDERS: LOCKHART J.

WHERE MADE :  AT SYDNEY

DATE OF	ORDERS:	1 3 AUGUST	1 9 8 2
Upon	the respondent	by	h i s counse l unde r t ak ing t o t he Cour t

t h a t t h e d e p o r t a t i o n o r d e r	made	by	him	a g a i n s t t h e a p p l i c a n t
on	2 3	July 1982	w i l l n o t	be executed pending the determinat ion

of	t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n o r d e r	of	review without	f i r s t	g iv ing
t o t h e a p p l i c a n t	48	hours	n o t i c e	i n w r i t i n g

THE COURT ORDERS THAT

1. The appl ica t ion be d i smissed

2 . c o s t s of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n are reserved

3 . E i t h e r p a r t y i s a t l i b e r t y t o app ly gene ra l ly on t w o

d a y s ' n o t i c e .

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

BETWEEN :  A L I UNLUGENC

Appel lant

AND :

THE M I N I S T E R FOR I M M I G R A T I O N AND

ETHNIC AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J .

13 August 1 9 8 2

I n t h i s m a t t e r I propose t o g ive judgment now a s I have a

f i rm v iew course by the helpful as to the ou tcome. I have been a s s i s t e d i n t a k i n g t h i s

arguments of counsel .

A l i Unlugenc ( " t h e a p p l i c a n t " ) f i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n i n t h i s

Court on 4 August	1982	seeking	var	ious	orders	including	an	order	that
a	d e p o r t a t i o n	o r d e r	made	a g a i n s t him	on	2 3 J u l y 1962	by	the	Minister

for Immigration and E thn ic Af fa i r s ( " the respondent" ) be revcked. The

a p p l i c a t i o n i s made u n d e r t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D e c i s i c n s - ( J u d i c i a l

Review) A c t 1 9 7 7 ( " the Jud ic i a l . Review A c t " ) .

.

O n 4 August 1982 t h e a p p l i c a n t sough t a s ta tement f rom the

respondent ,	pursuant	t o S .	13	of	t h e	J u d i c i a l	Review	Act,	of	h i s
reasons	fo r	t h e	d e c i s i o n	t o	d e p o r t	t h e	a p p l i c a n t .	T h a t	s t a t e m e n t	h a s

. ..

-2-

not yet cons ider been given. The a p p l i c a n t s a y s t h a t h e w i l l need t i m e t o

those reasons when they a re g iven and t h e i r r e l e v a n c e t o h i s

ca se . Hence counsel for t h e a p p l i c a n t t o l d me t h a t h i s c l i e n t w i l l

probably need a t l e a s t two months from now b e f o r e h i s c a s e c a n b e

properly prepared and presented .

I n the meant ime, the appl icant i s being held i n custody a t

the Villawood Detention Centre, where he has been since 18 June 1982

when he was a r r e s t e d b y a n o f f i c e r of the Department of Immigration

and E thn ic a p p l i c a n t ' s a r r e s t Af fa i r s ( "the Cepartment" ) . The respondent s ays t h a t t h e

was made on t h e bas i s t h a t t h e r e l e v a n t o f f i c e r had

r easonab le g rounds fo r suppos ing t he app l i can t t o be a p roh ib i t ed

immigrant (Migration Act 1958, S. 3 8 ) .

The applicant seeks today an order that the reSFCnd€nt be

r e s t r a ined f r cm de t a in ing t he app l i can t o r caus ing him t o b e d e t a i n e d

pend ing f i na l de t e rmina t ion o f h i s app l i ca t ion fo r an o rde r of review

u n d e r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . J u d i c i a l R e v i e w A c t . The r e s p o n d e n t o p p o s e s t h a t

The f a c t s may b e b r i e f l y s t a t e d . The a p p l i c a n t i s 22 yea r s

of cge . H e i s a T u r k i s h n a t i o n a l who e n t e r e d A u s t r a l i a f o r t h e f i r s t

t i m t z on 3 1 December 1980 a t Sydney. He was then granted a temporary

en t ry permi t aFplicatj .cn made by to remain i n Aus t r a l i a fo r one mon th Pu r scan t . t o an ..

him on 2 8 January 1911 t he app l i can t was granted a

second temForary entry permit on 11 February 1 9 8 1 a u t h o r i s i n s him t o

remain i n A u s t r a l i a u n t i l 1 April. 1981. N o f u r the r en t ry pe rmi t has

. ._". . ' ,

.I. . . '

-3-

s ince been g ran ted t o t he app l i can t .

The app l i can t mar r i ed an Aus t r a l i an c i t i zen on 21 March 1981.

On 2 3 March 1981 t h e a p p l i c a n t and h i s w i f e made what i s descr ibed i n

t he ev idence a s an app l i ca t ion fo r r e s iden t s t a tus on the ground of

h i s mar r i age the Depar tment about h i s appl ica t ion some two d a y s e a r l i e r . The appl icant heard nothing from

u n t i l h i s a r r e s t on 18 June 1 9 8 2 .

On 2 5 June 1 9 8 2 , w h i l s t i n custody, he received a l e t t e r from

the Cepartment "was not one informing him t h a t h i s a p p l i c a n t f o r r e s i d e n t s t a t u s

fo r app rcva l " , which I t ake it i s t h e form adopted by t h e

CeFar tment	for	say ing	tha t	the	appl ica t ion	was	re fused .	I t i s ccrnmcn
g r o u n d	t h a t	t h e	a p p l i c a t i o n	f o r	r e s i d e n t	s t a t u s	a n s w e r s	t h e

desc r ip t ion o f an appl ica t ion for an en t ry permi t o ther than a

temporary permit under sub-S. 6 (2A) and ( 5 ) of the Migrat ion Act .

O n 25 June 1982 , t he app l i can t ' s s i s t e r , who l i v e s i n

A u s t r a L i a w i t h h e r h u s b a n d , made a r e q u e s t f o r r e v i e w o f t h e '

Cepartment' S r e f u s a l o f t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e s i d e n t

s t a t c s . Cn 1 2 July 1982, representat ions were made on behalf of the

a p p l i c a n t t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t b y t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s s o l i c i t o r i n support of

t he r eques t c o n s i 2 ~ r c c l fcr review. On 8 July 1982, the Immigration Review Panel.

t h i s r e q u e s t and recommended t o t h e M i n i s t e r t h a t "The

depar tmenta l dec is ion to re fuse permanent res idence be main ta ined" .

The Ftinister	accepted	that	recommendation	and	s igned	the	depor ta t ion
o rde r .

.

-4-

O n 2 6 J u l y 1982, t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s s i s t e r was informed by the

depar tment tha t her reques t for the rev iew had been re fused .

I t i s ccmmon ground t h a t t h e C o u r t h a s power t o make t h e

o r d e r s o u g h t b y t h e a p p l i c a n t n a m e l y , t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t b e

r e s t r a i n e d from de ta in ing t he app l i ca .n t pend ing f i na l de t e rmina t ion o f

h i s	a p p l i c a t i o n	f o r	a n	o r d e r	of	review.	M r .	J u s t i ce	Nor th rop
considered	a	s i m i l a r	a p p l i c a t i o n	i n	P i r c g l u	v .	The	Honourable	Ian

Macphee,	Minis ter	of	S t a t e fo r Immigra t ion	and	E t h n i c A f f a i r s	and	The
Commonwealth	of	Aus t ra l ia ,	unrepor ted	18 June	1981.	H i s Honour	he ld

t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s power t o make i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n s r e q u i r i n g

the	Min i s t e r	t o	r e l ease	an	app l i can t	from	custody	pending	the	hearing
and	de termina t ion	o f	h i s	a p p L i c a t i o n	f o r	a n	o r d e r	of	review.	H i s

Honour h e l d t h a t t h e s o u r c e o f t h a t power i s t o be found i n ss . 1 9 and

2 3 of the Fede.ral Court of A u s t r a l i a Act 1 9 7 6 .

Sec t ion 2 3 empowers the Cour t , i n r e l a t i o n t o m a t t e r s i n

which it h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n , t o make o rde r s of such k inds as the Cour t

t h i n k s a p p r o p r i a t e i n c l u d i n g i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r s . *

I ag ree w i th h i s Honour' S view. I would add fo r myse l f t ha t

I see noth ing incons is ten t w i t h t h i s view and the provisions of ss. 38

and 39 of the Migration Act. inconsistency. Nor was i t suggested i n argument before

me t h a t t h e r e was any such

Mr. Jus t i ce Nor th rop w e n t on t o s a y t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e s t o b e

app l i ed i n deciding cases of th i s k ind a r e t hose enunc ia t ed i n Beecham

Grcup L i m i t e d v. Br i s to l Labora tor accep ted ies P ty . L imi ted (1968) 118 C . L . R .

618. Counsel for the app l i can t t h i s app roach and proceeded

t o a r g u e t h a t a pr ima fac ie case for a n order of review had been

e s t ab l i shed i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e and t h a t t h e b a l a n c e of convenience

l a y i n favour o f g ran t ing the in junc t ion sought .

H i s argument may b e b r i e f l y summarised. The a p p l i c a n t i s a

p e r s o n a g g r i e v e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s o r d e r t o depor t h im f rom

Austral ia . There should be an order of review on any one o r more o f

the fol 'lowing grounds:

( a ) t h a t a b r e a c h o f t h e r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e

occurred	i n connec t ion	wi th	the	making	o f	t h e
depor t a t ion	o rde r	-	J u d i c i a l Review	Act ,	para .	5

(1) (a . ) ;

(b) t h a t t h e making o f t he depor t a t ion o rde r was a n

improper exerc ise o f the power conferred by the

Migration Act - para 5 (1) ( e ) ;

( c ) t h a t t h e d e p o r t a t i o n o r d e r i n v o l v e d a n e r r o r o f law

- para . 5(1) (f); and

( d ) t h a t t h e r e was no evidence or o t h e r m a t e r i a l t o

j u s t i f y t h e making of t h e d e p o r t a t i o n o r d e r - para .

5   ( 1 ) ( h ) .

As t o t he a rgumen t t ha t a breach of n a t u r a l j u s t i c e o c c u r r e d

i n connect ion with the making of the decis ion t o depor t t he app l i can t ,

counse l fo r t he app l i can t submi t t ed t ha t i n a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the

appl icant had a " l eg i t ima te expec ta t ion" of being granted an entry

p e r m i t , o t h e r w i s e t h a n a t e m p o r a r y e n t r y p e r m i t , f o l l o w i n g t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n made j u s t a f t e r h i s m a r r i a g e . He submi t t ed t ha t he was

e n t i t l e d t o be heard before the respondent made h i s d e c i s i o n t o d e p o r t

him and t h a t t h e f a i l u r e of t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o h e a r him c o n s t i t u t e d a

d e n i a l o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e . A s t o " l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n " , s e e - R. v .

Mackellar; ex par te Ratu & Anor ( 1 9 7 7 ) 1 3 7 C . L . R . 461 ( a t p p . 478 and

4 7 9 ) and Salemi v . Mackellar ( N o . 2 ) ( 1 9 7 7 ) 1 3 7 C . L . R . 396 ( a t p p . 404

t o 4 0 6 ) .

The a p p l i c a n t ' s r i g h t t o be heard i s s a i d t o a r i s e i n

p a r t i c u l a r	from	para.	6 A	(1)	(b)	o f	t he	Migra t ion	Act	which	provides
t h a t :

"6A (1 ) A n e n t r y p e r m i t s h a l l n o t b e g r a n t e d t o an

i m m i g r a n t a f t e r h i s e n t r y i n t o A u s t r a l i a u n l e s s o n e

o r more of the fo l lowing condi t ions i s f u l f i l L e d i n

r e s p e c t of him, t h a t i s t o s a y -. . .

(b) h e i s the spouse , ch i ld o r aged parent o f an

A u s t r a l i a n c i t i z e n . . ."

The app l i can t submi t t ed t ha t a s he was the spouse of an

A u s t r a l i a n c i t i z e n h e w a s e n t i t l e d t o a n en t ry pe rmi t a s o f r i gh t . He

s u b m i t t e d a l t e r n a t i v e l y t h a t , i f t h e g r a n t of an en t ry permi t was .

d i s c r e t i o n a r y and i f p a r a . 6 A (1) ( b ) mereLy de f ined t he cond i t ions

which had t o b e s a t i s f i e d b e f o r e t h e r e s p o n d e n t would consider t he

grant o f such a p e r m i t , t h i s r e i n f o r c e d h i s " l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n "

of being granted an entry permit , especial ly as some 14 months elapsed

a f t e r he app l i ed fo r t he pe rmi t and before he was a r r e s t e d .

I t was submi t t ed t ha t exercise t he making o f t h e d e c i s i o n t o d e p o r t

t h e a p p l i c a n t was an improper of the power t o d e p o r t . First ,

t he	r e sponden t	t ook	an	i r r e l evan t	cons ide ra t ion	i n to	accoun t	i n	t h e
exe rc i se o f	t he	power	( J u d i c i a l Review	Act,	para.	5	( 2 )	(a)	) , namely a

departmental submission that the marr iage of the appl icant and h i s

wife was con t r ived fo r t he pu rpose o f enhanc ing t he app l i can t ’ s

chances of s tay ing i n Aus t r a l i a . Second , t he r e sponden t f a i l ed t o

t ake a r e l evan t cons ide ra t ion i n to accoun t i n t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e

power ( J u d i c i a l Review Act , para . 5 ( 2 ) ( b ) ) , namely t h e f a c t t h a t

t he b ro the r - in - l aw o f t he app l i can t was in te rv iewed by of f icers o f the

department. Questions were asked as to many mat te rs inc luding the

appLicant’s whereabouts, and the c i rcumstances o f h i s marr iage and a s

t o w h e t h e r h e was c o h a b i t i n g w i t h h i s w i f e . The a p p l i c a n t ’ S

b r o t h e r - i n - l a w s a i d t h a t h e p r o v i d e d t h o s e o f f i c e r s w i t h f u l l

p a r t i c u l a r s o f a l l o f t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s , b u t was not asked to s i g n a

s t a t emen t a t any t ime . Ye t , it i s s a i d , none o f t h o s e f a c t s were

taken in to h i s d i s c r e t i o n account by the Minis ter Third, . the Review respondent exercised

i n bad f a i t h ( J u d i c i a l Act , para . 5 ( 2 ) ( d ) ) .

L i t t l e was s a i d i n support of t h i s and I w i l l no t dwel l fur ther on i t .

Fourth, the dec i s ion t o depor t t he app l i can t i nvo lved an e r ro r of l a w

( J u d i c i a l R e v i e w Act, para 5 (1) ( f ) ) i n t h a t t h e dec i s ion assumed

tha t the n o t h w i t h s t a n d i n g respondent had a d i s c r e t i o n t o r e f u s e a n e n t r y p e r m i t

t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t h a d m a r r i e d a n A u s t r a l i a n

c i t i z e n . T h i s argument, which I r e f e r r e d t o e a r l i e r , r e s t s on t h e

. . . . . . .

-8-

assumption that once any one of the condi t ions specif ied i n sub-s. 6 A

(1) of the Migration Act i s s a t i s f i e d , t h e r e s p o n d e n t i s bound t o

g r a n t	an	e n t r y p e r m i t .
Then t h e r e was a gene ra l submiss ion t ha t making t he re was no

e v i d e n c e o r o t h e r m a t e r i a l t o j u s t i f y t h e of t h e d e c i s i o n .

L i t t l e was s a i d i n suppor t o f t h i s submiss ion s ave t o t he ex t en t t ha t

t h e o t h e r s u b m i s s i o n s r e l a t e d t o it.

I m u s t con fes s t o hav ing r e se rva t ions a s t o t h e c o r r e c t n e s s

of	t h e	p r o p o s i t i o n	t h a t	t h e	p r i n c i p l e s	expounded	i n Beecham	r e l a t i n g
t o	t h e	g r a n t i n g	of	i n t e r l o c u t o r y	i n j u n c t i o n s	a p p l y	t o	a p p l i c a t i o n s

like t he p re sen t , where t he app l i can t seeks an o rde r t ha t he be

r e l eased from cus tody pending the de te rmina t ion of h i s appl ica t ion for

an	o rder	o f	rev iew	under	the	Judic ia l	Review	Act.	However,	I do no t
f i n d	it	necessary	to	reso lve	the	ques t ion	because	I	propose	t o dec ide

t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n b e f o r e me o n the a s sumpt ion t ha t a pr ima fac ie case

i n t h e s e n s e r e f e r r e d t o i n Beecham and other judgments since then has

been made ou t .	Th i s	dces	no t	mean	t h a t	I	th ink	a	pr ima fac ie	case	has
been	es tab l i shed .	I t	seems	t o me	t h a t ,	w h e t h e r	t h e r e	i s	a	pr ima	facie

case o r n o t , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f a l l s t o be determined on d i s c r e t i o n a r y

grounds.

The a p p l i c a n t i s a prohibi ted immigrant . He is thus deemed ..

t o be g u i l t y of an offence against the Migrat ion A c t ( p a r a . 2 7 (1)

( a b ) ) . H e remains i n Aus t ra l ia wi thout l awful au thor i ty . He i s

l i a b l e t o a r r e s t and d e t e n t i o n . He has n o r i g h t t o remain i n t h i s

country.	Me	is an i l l e g a l immigrant:	-	R .	v.	Forbes	and	Anor;	Ex p a r t e
Kwok	Kwan	Lee	(1971)	124	C . L . R .	168.	As Mason J . s a i d i n -	R .	v .

Mackellar; Ex parte Ratu (supra) (a t pp. 478-479):-

"The	making	o f	a	depor ta t ion	o rder	under	S . 18
therefore	p	rovides	l awful	au thor i ty	for	the	removal

from A u s t r a l i a a g a i n s t h i s w i l l of a person who h a s

no	r i g h t t o remain	here.	I t	i s	n o t	t h e	c a s e	t h a t
t h e	o r d e r	t e r m i n a t e s	h i s	r i g h t	t o	r e m a i n ;	n o r	c a n
it be	said	i n	t h e	o r d i n a r y	c a s e	t h a t	it	depr ives

him of a l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t h e w i l l be

a l lowed to remain here . Deportat ion, for which t h e

order provides , i s then bu t a consequence of the

prohib i ted immigrant ' s fa i lure t o depa r t when he

has no r i g h t t o r e m a i n . 'I

I agree with the view expressed by Northrop J . i n Pirog1u:-

" T h e p o l i c y o f t h e M i g r a t i o n A c t should i s c l e a r .

Prohib i ted immigrants no t be l e f t a t l a rge

i n t h e community pending depor ta t ion un less the

Minis te r o r an a u t h o r i z e d o f f i c e r e x e r c i s e s h i s

d i s c r e t i o n i n accordance with S. 39. . . i n my opinion

t h e r e i s a r e a l d a n g e r t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t , i f re leased from custody, would merge i n t h e community and s e e k t o become absorbed in to the community. I

c o n s i d e r	t h i s	t y p e	o f	c a s e	t o	b e	v e r y	d i f f e r e n t
from	t h e	normal	' b a i l '	c a s e .	I n	those	cases	a

p e r s o n h a s b e e n a r r e s t e d a n d c h a r g e d w i t h a

cr iminal offence but has not been convicted. He is

being held i n custody pending t r i a l a n d , p r i m a

f a c i e , i s e n t i t l e d t o b a i l . I n the p resent case

t h e a p p l i c a n t h a s n o t b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h a n y

cr imina l o f fence . He i s a prohibited immigrant and

under the Migration Act Frima facie should be held

i n custody. Time l imi t s a r e imposed by S . 38 of

the Migra t ion	A c t	and	once	a	depor t a t ion o rde r has
been made a deportee,	prima	facie,	should	be	held
i n c u s t c d y	u n t i l deported,	S.	39	Migration	Act.

The Cour t should no t in te r fe re w i t h t h a t p o l i c y

except i n except ional c i rcumstances. "

The app l i can t ' s conduc t s ince he a r r ived i n Aus t r a l i a on 31

Cecember	1980	toge ther	w i t h	L ies	which	he	to ld	o f f icers	of	t h e
Department	s a t i s f y me	t h a t	t h e r e	i s	a	r e a l	d a n g e r	t h a t	i f	re leased

.4

. ....

-10-

from custody he would d isappear and seek t o become absorbed in to the

ccmmunity. The a p p l i c a n t made a s t a t u t o r y d e c l a r a t i o n o n 9 June 1 9 8 2

i n support of h i s s o l i c i t o r ' s s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t t h a t t h e

appl icant should be granted an en t ry permi t .

F o r a b o u t t h r e e m o n t h s a f t e r h i s a r r i v a l i n A u s t r a l i a t h e

a p p l i c a n t l i v e d w i t h h i s s i s . t e r and brother-in-law a t t h e i r home i n

Auburn. He f i r s t met h i s fu tu re w i fe Ka th leen on the s econd o r t h i rd

d a y a f t e r h i s a r r i v a l i n Aus t r a l i a . The rea f t e r he saw h e r o f t e n and

marr ied her on 2 1 March 1981. He was then aged 2 1 and she was aged

3 1 . I t seems that Kathleen, a l though formerly a member o f t he Rcman

C a t h o l i c f a i t h , r e n o u n c e d t h a t f a i t h and adopted the Is lamic re l igion

b e f o r e t h e a p p l i c a n t a r r i v e d i n A u s t r a l i a . The applicant swore:-

" D u r i n g t h e two	weeks	I	l ived	wi	th	Kath leen ,	I	saw
her	change	from	a	happy g i r l	t o	a	drug	addicted

person. I was aware , p r io r t o ou r mar r i age t ha t ,

she was t ak ing scme medicat ion but I never imagined

t h a t s h e was abusing her bcdy and s a n i t y by over

doses o f p rescr ibed medica t ion . Many t imes she was

uncons ious ( s i c ) fo r l ong pe r iods o f t ime . I t r i e d

t o h e l p h e r p h y s i c a l l y a s w e l l a s g i v i n g h e r m e n t a l
suppor t .	I a l s o t r i e d t o reason with her and

hoping tha t by reasoning wi th her , I would be ab le

t o	h e l p	h e r	overcome	her	addict ion	problem.	I	was
i n	g r e a t	d i s b e l i e f	and	very	sad	and	upset	with

K a t h l e e n ' s	s i t u a t i o n .	I	could	not	handle	watching
K a t h l e e n	b e i n g	s i c k	a n d	u n c o n s i o u s	( s i c )	and
nonethe less	cont inuing	w i t h	her	d rug	addic t ion .	I
never	told	anyone	about	Kathleen's	problem.	I n

p a r t i c u l a r , I was c a r e f u l t o h i d e t h a t f a c t from my

s i s t e r and brother-in-law and Vicki and L a t i f . I n

the end , I was so depressed I had t o r u n away from

it a l l .	I tock my	c l o t h e s and personal	belongings
from	K a t h l e e n ' s f l a t	and	l e f t . "

There i s abundant evidence before me to ca s t g rave doub t on

t h e t r u t h f u l n e s s o f much of what the appl icant says i n h i s s t a t u t o r y

declara t ion . There i s a d e a l of ev idence to suppor t the conclus ion

t h a t when t h e a p p l i c a n t m a r r i e d h i s w i f e h e knew t h a t s h e was addicted

t o d r u g s , and tha t he mar r i ed he r t o enhance h i s p rospec t of remaining

i n A u s t r a l i a ,	so	t h a t	h e	c o u l d	t h e n a s s e r t	t h a t	h e	was	married	t o an
A u s t r a l i a n	c i t i z e n .	O n	any	view	of	t h e	f a c t s ,	it was	a	whirlwind

cour t sh ip . Even on h i s own case , he on ly remained wi th h i s wi fe for

two weeks a f t e r t h e i r m a r r i a g e . I n d e e d , t h e r e is a body of evidence

t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t and h i s w i fe neve r l i ved t oge the r a s man and wife

a t any time. The respondent F la in ly came t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e

marriage of t h e a p p l i c a n t was not genuine i n t h e s e n s e t h a t it was

mere ly en te red i n to t o be t t e r t he app l i can t ' s chances of remaining i n

A u s t r a l i a .

I n S a f a d i v . 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

(1981) 38 A . L . R . 399 Franki J . s a i d ( a t p . 403) : -

" I n my opinion it was open t o t h e M i n i s t e r t o

dec ide t ha t t he mar r i age o f t he app l i can t was

genuine	or	was	mere ly	t o	s eek	t o	ob ta in	a	b e n e f i t
p o s s i b l y	a v a i l a b l e	t o	him	a s	a	r e s u l t	o f	t h e

marriage. I n e i t h e r c a s e it was open t o t h e

M i n i s t e r t o e x e r c i s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n favour of

depor t a t ion . 'I

I agree w i t h Franki J. that the c i rcumstances surrounding the

marriage i n Aus t r a l i a of a person aga ins t whom a depor t a t ion o rde r has

been made may be considered by the	respondent	i n deciding	whether	to
depor t tha t person .

I t u r n t o a d i f f e r e n t m z t t e r . When interviewed by t h e

o f f i c e r s o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t , p r o b a b l y a f t e r h i s a r r e s t , t h e a p p l i c a n t

i

,

. . .

-12-

a d m i t t e d l y l i e d t o them. H e t o l d them t h a t h e and h i s wife were then

l i v i n g	t o g e t h e r .	T h i s	was	u n t r u e .	I t	c o n c e r n e d	m a t t e r s	of
considerable	importance	t o	the	respondent	i n	deciding	whether	the

appl icant should remain i n A u s t r a l i a o r not . I do n o t have any

conf idence tha t : the appl icant , i f r e l eased from custody, would observe

a n y c o n d i t i o n s t h a t may be imposed a s a term of h i s r e l e a s e . I reach

th i s conc lus ion no twi ths tanding the ev idence of t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s s i s t e r

and h i s b r o t h e r - i n - l a w t h a t , t h e i f a p p l i c a n t i s released from

cus tcdy , they w i l l do eve ry th ing w i th in t he i r power t o e n s u r e t h a t h e

compl i e s w i th any cond i t ions a t t ach ing t o h i s r e l ease and w i l l a l low

him t o l i v e w i t h them and work f o r them i n t h e i r b u s i n e s s .

The period during which the a p p l i c a n t w i l l be i n custody w i l l

n o t be excess ive . H e i s no t b e i n g h e l d i n gaol wi th c r imina ls . The

evidence i s tha t the Vi l lawood Ceten t ion Cent re i s operated by t h e

Department and t h a t a l l t h e d e t a i n e e s a r e p r o h i b i t e d i m m i g r a n t s - men,

wcmen and ch i ldren . There i s reasonable freedom of movement wi th in

the Cen t re . The peop le s t ay ing t he re seem t o b e , o n the evidence,

r easonab ly we l l l ooked a f t e r .

I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e l e a s e from custody

should be refused.

Before the commencement of the hear ing of t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , .~

t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o l d t h e a p p l i c a n t t h a t he would not execute the

d e p o r t a t i o n o r d e r w i t h o u t 4 8 h o u r s p r i o r n o t i c e t o him. Th e

respondent h a s o f f e red t o g iven an unde r t ak ing t c t h e C o u r t t o the

f

0

#

. . .~

-1 3-

same e f f e c t . I do no t t h ink i n a l l t he c i r cums tances of t h i s case

t h a t any larger undertaking i s c a l l e d f o r a t t h i s s t a g e .

Upon the respondent by h i s counsel undertaking t o t h e c o u r t

t h a t t h e d e p o r t a t i o n o r d e r made by him a g a i n s t t h e a p p l i c a n t on 2 3

J u l y 1982 w i l l not be executed pending the determinat ion of this

appLica t ion fo r an o rde r o f r ev iew wi thou t f i r s t g iv ing t o t he

a p p l i c a n t 48 hours nctice i n w r i t i n g , t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n for

a n o r d e r t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t b e r e s t r a i n e d f r o m d e t a i n i n g t h e

app l i can t o r caus ing him to be de ta ined pending f ina l de te rmina t ion of

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o r o r d e r o f r e v i e w i s d ismissed . E i ther par ty i s a t

l i b e r t y t o a p p l y g e n e r a l l y on two days ' . no t i ce . I r e s e r v e t h e c o s t s

of t h i s a p p L i c a t i o n .