2014•University of Tasmania law reviewRequires access

Immigration detention in Australia - an indefinite future for indefinite detention: Plaintiff M76's case

Rohan Nanthakumar

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

Plaintiff M76/2013 v Minister For Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship and Ors' (,Plaintiff M76') dealt with the issue of indefinite detention of unlawful non-citizens. This case presented the High Court with the opportunity to reopen and re-examine the correctness of AlKateb v Godwin ('AI-Kateb'), which stands as authority for the permissibility of indefinite detention in Australia. The decision in AlKateb has been the subject of much academic debate and thus Plaintiff M76 was viewed with anticipation. The Court, likely to the disappointment of many academics and practitioners, largely sidestepped an examination of Al-Kateb 's correctness, demonstrating a reluctance in most serving High Court judges to reopen Al-Kateb. Hayne, Kiefel and Keane JJ confirmed the holding in Al-Kateb, while the remaining four judges avoided deciding on the correctness of the case. In light of the recent decision in Plaintiff S4/2014 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection ('Plaintiff S4') and the ongoing rapid change in the composition of the High Court Bench, the approach to Al-Kateb may well be different in the future. The future of indefinite detention in this country is, therefore, itself indefinite.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Plaintiff M76/2013 v Minister For Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship and Ors' (,Plaintiff M76') dealt with the issue of indefinite detention of unlawful non-citizens. This case presented the High Court with the opportunity to reopen and re-examine the correctness of AlKateb v Godwin ('AI-Kateb'), which stands as authority for the permissibility of indefinite detention in Australia. The decision in AlKateb has been the subject of much academic debate and thus Plaintiff M76 was viewed with anticipation. The Court, likely to the disappointment of many academics and practitioners, largely sidestepped an examination of Al-Kateb 's correctness, demonstrating a reluctance in most serving High Court judges to reopen Al-Kateb. Hayne, Kiefel and Keane JJ confirmed the holding in Al-Kateb, while the remaining four judges avoided deciding on the correctness of the case. In light of the recent decision in Plaintiff S4/2014 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection ('Plaintiff S4') and the ongoing rapid change in the composition of the High Court Bench, the approach to Al-Kateb may well be different in the future. The future of indefinite detention in this country is, therefore, itself indefinite.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 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

Plaintiff M76/2013 v Minister For Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship and Ors' (,Plaintiff M76') dealt with the issue of indefinite detention of unlawful non-citizens. This case presented the High Court with the opportunity to reopen and re-examine the correctness of AlKateb v Godwin ('AI-Kateb'), which stands as authority for the permissibility of indefinite detention in Australia. The decision in AlKateb has been the subject of much academic debate and thus Plaintiff M76 was viewed with anticipation. The Court, likely to the disappointment of many academics and practitioners, largely sidestepped an examination of Al-Kateb 's correctness, demonstrating a reluctance in most serving High Court judges to reopen Al-Kateb. Hayne, Kiefel and Keane JJ confirmed the holding in Al-Kateb, while the remaining four judges avoided deciding on the correctness of the case. In light of the recent decision in Plaintiff S4/2014 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection ('Plaintiff S4') and the ongoing rapid change in the composition of the High Court Bench, the approach to Al-Kateb may well be different in the future. The future of indefinite detention in this country is, therefore, itself indefinite.

Key concepts: Plaintiff, Law, Political science, Correctness, Sociology, Computer science, Algorithm

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Immigration detention in Australia - an indefinite future for indefinite detention: Plaintiff M76's case — Research Paper | ScholarLens