Judge accused of migration bias

Federal Circuit Court Judge Alexander Street has been accused of apprehended bias following his rejection of hundreds of migrant appeals.

Lara Bullock • 14 September 2015 • The Bar

Recently appointed Judge Street rejected 252 migration appeals out of the 254 total rulings he delivered between January and June 2015, with many cases dismissed at the first court date when evidence gathering and hearing scheduling is usually discussed.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

The Federal Court Reports editor Victor Kline has sworn an affidavit, which alleges Judge Street found in favour of the Immigration Minister in virtually every case he heard.

Judge Street, hailing from the well-known Street legal family, has been strongly criticised for his actions, and two recent rulings have been the subject of several appeals in the Full Federal Court, as reported by the ABC.

Applicants in two recent cases presented the statistics to support their allegation that anyone seeking a judicial review of migration decisions in Judge Street’s court between January and June this year had almost no chance of succeeding.

Monash University law professor Matthew Groves said: “The [statistics] are quite unusual because they show that for migration hearings, essentially you've got no prospect of succeeding in front of this particular judge.”

VIEW ALL

Judge Street was appointed to the Federal Circuit Court in December 2014 following media attention around his financial situation of extensive debt and the possibility of bankruptcy.

Since being appointed, Judge Street has been found to have denied litigants procedural fairness in two successful appeals of his decisions in the Full Federal Court.

Like this story? Subscribe to our free newsletter and receive Lawyers Weekly every day straight to your inbox.

Jesuisgillian Tuesday, 15 September 2015

Having just come back from Germany, I was embarrassed that Australia is widely seen as one of those countries who "do not care". German armed forces (unlike Australia) are being used not to turn back refugees but to help house them and make sure they are properly cared for. The majority of the German population support their open door policy despite the potential issues and do not look jealously at Australia, but rather with bewilderment.

0
Allison O'neill Tuesday, 15 September 2015

Well I'd be MORE concerned (given his bankruptcy allegations) if the tables had been turned actually! Me happy that he has turned back so many - serves sense given the current issues in certain sectors of the world who turn with jealous eyes to lands who do not care or want their cultural and religious "baggage"!

0
pfeerick Monday, 14 September 2015

A little more time is needed to see what the outcome of the the other 250-odd verdicts is if they are appealed. If a growing trend starts of overturning Judge Street's verdicts on these cases, then there are grounds for an accusation of bias. At the moment there is no real data to base this accusation on. As ERB said earlier... did the department get it right in those cases? If so, why would Judge Street not give the verdict that he did? At the moment, this is mere speculation at best. However, that does not mean that it these verdicts shouldn't be examined to ensure that there is no bias or error.

0
ERB Monday, 14 September 2015

So what? Might it not be that the Department usually gets it right, and that His Honour is also getting it right by not second guessing them on spurious grounds? Perhaps the real fault is with other judges being too keen to undermine the immigration laws enacted by a democratically elected Parliament.

0