HCA Failed Offshore Detention Challenge S195/2016

Friends, I am uploading the HCA 31 (S195/2016) Order, which an asylum-seeker in 2017 had sought to challenge the Government's Offshore Detention Regime, following the PNG Supreme Court ruling that asylum-seeker's detention on PNG soil is unconstitutional (PNG). Gallant effort, no doubt, on the part of the asylum-seeker but the judges said the points being raised have not been quite within the bounds of Australian Constitution. We need to observe why this challenge had failed. For example, the High Court mentioned there were no question being raised about Australian Law as:

"17 Aside from any consequences flowing from the Namah Decision, the questions stated by the parties do not otherwise raise any issue of whether s 198AHA is a valid law of the Commonwealth insofar as it supports those actions."

Further, the judges note the complaints being put forwards were 'novel and sweeping', to mean "too broad, vague or imprecise" as:

"20 Neither proposition is tenable. As to the first, what is telling is that the plaintiff could marshal no authority to support it and made no attempt to anchor it to the text or structure of the Constitution ..... .... Absent some express or implied limitation imposed by a law enacted by Parliament, however, the compliance or non-compliance of the action with the domestic law of another country is a circumstance which has no bearing on such statutory authority or executive capacity as the officer might otherwise have to take that action."

My observation is that the High Court might not be practically able, or otherwise uncomfortable, looking into matters that address the whole of government offshore detention policy and entire range of injustices that inflicted upon asylum-seekers. However, the Court will be able to look into complaints that clearly relates to the law (s 198AHA) or Australian Constitution. The Case S195/2016, therefore, had been thrown out by the entire bench of the High Court.

With respect to Bomana53#, they had clearly suffered from range of targeted oppression by ABF. I hope that their cases be brought forward to Australian Courts, including the High Court.

-- Cheers, NetIPR.

[HCA Order on S195/2016 Case]
Question 1
Was the designation of [Papua New Guinea] as a regional processing country on 9 October 2012 beyond the power conferred by s 198AB(1) of
the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?
Answer
No.
Question 2
Was entry into:
(a) the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding;
(b) the Regional Resettlement Arrangement
(c) the 2014 Administrative Arrangements; and
(d) the Broadspectrum Contract,
beyond the power of the Commonwealth conferred by s 61 of the Constitution and/or s 198AHA of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] by reason
of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?
Answer
No.
Question 3
Was the direction made by the Minister on 29 July 2013 beyond the power conferred by s 198AD(5) of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?
Answer
No.
Question 4
Was the taking of the plaintiff to [Papua New Guinea] on 21 August 2013 beyond the power conferred by s 198AD of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)]
by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?
Answer
No.
Question 5
Is the authority for the Commonwealth to undertake conduct in respect of regional processing arrangements in [Papua New Guinea] conferred by
s 198AHA of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] dependent on whether those arrangements are lawful under the law of [Papua New Guinea]?
Answer
No.
Question 6
Is the Commonwealth precluded from assisting [Papua New Guinea] to take action pursuant to the orders outlined at paragraph 35 [of the special case] by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?
Answer
No.
Question 7
Who should pay the costs of the special case?
Answer
The plaintiff.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/17/high-court-uphold...