ScholarLens Back to search
2004•Unpublished venueRequires access

The High Court and indefinite detention: towards a national bill of rights?

Peter Prince, Parliamentary Library

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

In August 2004 Australia's High Court declared by 4:3 that failed asylum seekers who have nowhere to go can be kept in immigration detention indefinitely. In the Al-Khateb and Al Khafaji cases, the majority said that provided the Immigration Minister retained the intention of eventually deporting such people, detention would remain valid. These cases will be cited by those who argue that basic freedoms for people within Australia's jurisdiction are not adequately protected and there is a need for a national 'bill of rights'. Peter Prince examines the issues.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In August 2004 Australia's High Court declared by 4:3 that failed asylum seekers who have nowhere to go can be kept in immigration detention indefinitely. In the Al-Khateb and Al Khafaji cases, the majority said that provided the Immigration Minister retained the intention of eventually deporting such people, detention would remain valid. These cases will be cited by those who argue that basic freedoms for people within Australia's jurisdiction are not adequately protected and there is a need for a national 'bill of rights'. Peter Prince examines the issues.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In August 2004 Australia's High Court declared by 4:3 that failed asylum seekers who have nowhere to go can be kept in immigration detention indefinitely. In the Al-Khateb and Al Khafaji cases, the majority said that provided the Immigration Minister retained the intention of eventually deporting such people, detention would remain valid. These cases will be cited by those who argue that basic freedoms for people within Australia's jurisdiction are not adequately protected and there is a need for a national 'bill of rights'. Peter Prince examines the issues.

Key concepts: Immigration detention, Law, Jurisdiction, Political science, Immigration, High Court, Bill of rights, Refugee

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2Related paper 3
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The High Court and indefinite detention: towards a national bill of rights? — Research Paper | ScholarLens