And so it should — Heydon J dissenting, as you could predict. (In 1961 Heydon J was a fellow member of Derek Marsh’s English tute group, and Philip Ruddock sat beside me in English History lectures.) Probably the most thorough account is Legal Eagle’s: Breaking News: High Court declares Malaysian “Solution” illegal.
…Interesting to see what the government’s response will be now. I have to say that I’m quite pleased by the result, as I was never very happy with any of these so-called “solutions” – Nauru, Malaysia etc.
I’ve had a chance to skim the judgments.
The decision of the majority centred around the criteria which allowed the Minister to determine that Malaysia was a place to which he was empowered to remove the asylum seekers, and the absence of other powers which would allow him to remove asylum seekers.
I should add at this point that I am not an administrative lawyer’s bootlace, but I’ve done my best to untangle the labyrinthine structure of the Migration Act and to understand the basis on which the High Court’s decision was made. If I have made any errors, please alert me and I will amend the post accordingly…
The Gillard government will go down in history as a textbook case of how not to do policy, and how not to sell policy. Not only on asylum seekers!
The following is not a joke:
Well, it wasn’t meant to be, but it sure is a joke now.
Mind you for the last two decades our approach to asylum seekers on boats has closely resembled the pea and thimble con game – now Christmas Island is Australia, and now it’s not, and so on. A sorry, sorry series of unnecessary “solutions”.
By Daniel Ghezelbash and Mary Crock
— Daniel G is an ex-student from SBHS.