Share and Follow
A citizen of Papua New Guinea has challenged the conditions of his release on a bridging visa, claiming they violated constitutional rights. After his release from detention, he was required to wear a monitoring device continuously and adhere to a nightly curfew, restricting him to a specific location from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
The federal government defended these conditions, arguing they were vital for safeguarding the Australian public. This stance was based on the man’s criminal history, which included a murder conviction during his youth and later domestic violence offenses.
However, the High Court, in a majority decision, ruled these conditions invalid. This ruling represents a significant setback for the federal government’s efforts to impose monitoring on individuals released from indefinite immigration detention.
This decision follows a pivotal 2023 High Court ruling that declared indefinite detention unlawful when there is no reasonable chance of deporting the individual from Australia in the near future. In response, the government had instituted this monitoring regime to address the court’s concerns.
The government introduced the monitoring regime after a landmark 2023 ruling by the same court that indefinite detention was illegal if there was no reasonable prospect of the person’s removal from Australia in the foreseeable future.
The decision led to the release of 150 immigration detainees with criminal records, some of whom had convictions for serious offences such as murder and rape.
A number were arrested for allegedly reoffending after their release, sparking fierce public and political backlash.
The government reacted by introducing laws requiring some of the former detainees to wear ankle monitors and abide by a curfew, but those measures were struck down in 2024.
The High Court ruled the conditions were unconstitutional because they represented a punishment imposed by the government not the judiciary.
The regulations were amended to only apply under circumstances in which a person posed a substantial risk of committing a serious offence and the measures were deemed necessary for community safety.
The PNG man who succeeded in the latest High Court challenge had his visa cancelled in 2024 after being jailed for domestic violence offences.
He was subsequently taken into immigration detention before being released into the community on a bridging visa with curfew and monitoring conditions.
The conditions were still incompatible with Australia’s constitution, the High Court found today.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said people with cancelled visas should leave the country when asked about the decision.
“While obviously the government would have preferred a different outcome, the government’s ambition was never about ankle bracelets,” he said in a statement.
“Fortunately, we now have the agreement with Nauru, because the best thing for people who have had their visa cancelled is to not be in this country.”
Some 43 people who have been on electronic monitoring in the community are expected to be immediately transferred to mandatory reporting conditions, requiring them to check in with authorities at a set time and place.
The cost of the High Court challenge will be paid by the federal government.