Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCrock, Mary
dc.contributor.authorGhezelbash, Daniel
dc.date.accessioned2024-12-02T04:55:23Z
dc.date.available2024-12-02T04:55:23Z
dc.date.issued2011en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/33349
dc.description.abstractA central message delivered by the High Court in Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth; Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth is that Australia’s Constitution and common law tradition do provide some guarantees against administrative unfairness and the arbitrary use of power, even in the absence of a bill of rights. The case is another example of the Australian courts facing down attempts to restrict judicial oversight of immigration decision-making. This time, the focus was on the system for processing asylum claims outside of Australia’s "migration zone". In a unanimous judgment, the High Court ruled that two Tamil asylum seekers denied refugee protection on Christmas Island did have a right to have their determinations made in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness and general principles of law. The authors examine the implications of the ruling for both the current regime and plans for the establishment of a regional processing centre in East Timor.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherThomson Reutersen
dc.relation.ispartofAustralian Journal of Administrative Lawen
dc.rightsCopyright All Rights Reserveden
dc.subjectadministrative unfairnessen
dc.subjectarbitrary use of poweren
dc.subjectPlaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth; Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealthen
dc.subjectasylum seekersen
dc.subjectEast Timoren
dc.titleDue process and rule of law as human rights: The High Court and the "offshore" processing of asylum seekersen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.type.pubtypePublisher's versionen
dc.rights.otherThis article was published by Thomson Reuters and should be cited as: Crock, M., & Ghezelbash, D. (2011). Due process and rule of law as human rights : the High Court and the "offshore" processing of asylum seekers. Australian Journal of Administrative Law, 18(2), 101–114. For all subscription inquiries please phone, from Australia: 1300 304 195, from Overseas: +61 2 8587 7980 or online at legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/search. The official PDF version of this article can also be purchased separately from Thomson Reuters at http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/subscribe-or-purchase. This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. PO Box 3502, Rozelle NSW 2039. legal.thomsonreuters.com.auen
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::The University of Sydney Law Schoolen
usyd.citation.volume18en
usyd.citation.issue2en
usyd.citation.spage101en
usyd.citation.epage114en
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.