Australian court upholds detention of Sri Lankan asylum seekers at sea
Thursday, 29 January 2015 01:43
-
- {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Reuters: Australia’s highest court ruled on Wednesday (28 January) that the detention of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka on the high seas for almost a month was lawful, a win for the government’s tough immigration policy.
The High Court ruling means the group of 157 ethnic Tamils, who were picked up by an Australian customs boat last June after setting out from India, are not entitled to seek compensation.
The case prompted the government to promise not to return the group, now being held at a detention centre on the South Pacific island of Nauru, to India or Sri Lanka.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said the court’s decision vindicated government policies, pointing to the fact only one boat had reached Australia since the policies were implemented 18 months ago and that authorities were seeing a decrease in the number of boats attempting the perilous voyage.
“I want to say thank you very much in particular to the General and to his staff. They have performed in an exemplary manner, and in a manner that I think all Australians should be very proud, because we have stopped people drowning at sea. We have stopped the boats and it is the absolute resolve of this government that that policy will continue,” Dutton told reporters in Canberra in response to the court ruling.
Lawyers for the asylum seekers were disappointed by the decision, but noted it was not unanimous and said the case succeeded in drawing attention to Australia’s secretive ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ activities.
The United Nations refugee agency, which has criticised Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers, made submissions in the case, drawing further international attention to the issue.
“It wasn’t until this case was brought that the government finally broke its secrecy to confirm for the first time to the Australian public that 157 people were detained somewhere on the high seas,” Hugh de Kretser, executive director of the Human Rights Law Centre, told reporters.
The High Court’s 4-3 split in favour of the government meant the judgement needed to be analysed to determine its full impact, lawyers said.
“There are points of law in which the majority agree with the minority. We need to distil those reasons and there may well not be a blank cheque open to the government to do whatever they want to people in this decision because it is quite complex and there are findings that go both ways,” said George Newhouse, of Shine Lawyers, acting for the group.
