Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

High Court says monitoring of former immigration detainees is unlawful

The High Court has made the “life-changing” decision to invalidate a “rushed” law to monitor people released from immigration detention.

user iconNaomi Neilson 11 November 2024 Big Law
expand image

Prior to the High Court’s decision late last week, hundreds of people who were formerly locked up in indefinite immigration detention were fitted with ankle bracelets and were adhering to strict curfews.

Chief Justice Stephen Gageler, along with Justices Michelle Gordon, Jacqueline Gleeson, Jayne Jagot, and James Edelman, found these monitoring activities were inconsistent with the Constitution.

Laura John, associate legal director at the Human Rights Law Centre, said the High Court decision made it clear that ankle bracelets and curfews were “no longer an acceptable solution”.

“Every person should have the same rights to freedom and dignity, but over 100 people have been locked inside their houses every night, and subjected to invasive ankle bracelets, simply because of their visa status. That ends today,” John said in a statement.

“Curfews and ankle bracelets impose ongoing punishment by disrupting families, making it near impossible to find work, and putting people in constant fear of being sent to prison if they are just a few minutes late arriving home.”

The case followed a stateless person known only as YBFZ, who arrived in Australia from Eritrea when he was 14 years old, had his refugee visa cancelled, and spent years in immigration detention.

Soon after his release, he was placed on the Bridging “R” Visa that imposed a condition that he remain at a notified address between 10pm and 6am every night and wear an electronic monitor.

The court described the monitor as “neither small nor discreet” and acknowledged many people would assume the person wearing the device presented a risk “as an unworthy or dangerous criminal”.

A breach of either of the conditions could see a person imprisoned for at least 12 months or up to five years.

John said the Albanese government rushed through legislation that allowed these forms of punishment and, in doing so, “substituted one form of punishment for another”.

“[The High Court] decision will have real, life-changing impacts for those who have been deprived of hope, liberty and security for years on end who must now – finally – be given the opportunity to rebuild their lives,” John said.

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly. 

You can email Naomi at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!