Full Court Minute Books

Case M84/2022

AZC20 v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs  & Ors

Case No.

M84 & M85/2022

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

05/04/2022 Federal Court of Australia (Jagot, Mortimer & Abraham JJ)

[2022] FCAFC 52

Catchwords

Immigration – Detention – Regional processing – Where appellant in immigration detention since 15 July 2013 – Where appellant required to be taken to regional processing country as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198AD of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where primary judge found it reasonably practicable to take appellant to regional processing country no later than end of September 2013 and, consequently, there had been "extensive" and "unwarranted delay" in removing appellant – Where primary judge made order compelling end of appellant's detention by causing appellant to be taken from Australia under s 196 of Migration Act ("mandamus order") – Where primary judge ordered appellant be detained in home only for so long as it took for appellant to be taken to regional processing country in accordance with mandamus order ("order 3") – Where order 3 suspended, coming into effect only if, after 14 days, respondents failed to take appellant to regional processing country – Where, hours before order 3 due to come into effect, only available regional processing country rejected appellant and Minister exercised personal, non-compellable power under s 198AE of Migration Act to disapply s 198AD to appellant – Where appellant remains in detention centre – Where Full Court granted leave to appeal from orders 3-5 of primary judge's orders – Whether order 3 satisfies temporal and/or purposive element of para (a) of definition of "immigration detention" in s 5 of Migration Act, whereby immigration detention means being in company of, and restrained by, an officer or another prescribed person.

Constitutional law – Chapter III – Courts and judges – Appeal from interlocutory order – Where s 24(1A) of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) requires leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment – Where ss 22 and 23 respectively confer power on Court to grant all remedies to which any party appears entitled and power to issue writs of such kinds as Court considers appropriate – Whether there "matter" within meaning of Chapter III of Constitution – Whether Full Court erred in granting leave to appeal from order 3 – Whether, in circumstances order 3 not come into execution, Full Court erred in granting leave without considering "substantial injustice" test.

Documents*

11/11/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video-connection)

25/11/2022 Notices of appeal

13/01/2023 Written submissions (Appellant - joint for both matters)

13/01/2023 Chronology (Appellant - joint for both matters)

10/02/2023 Written submissions (Respondents - joint for both matters)

03/03/2023 Reply (Appellant - joint for both matters)

11/05/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

11/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - joint for both matters)

11/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondents - joint for both matters)

06/09/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)