Category:
Created:
Updated:
DETAINEE WHO APPLIED FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WANTS TO TRANSFER THE PROCEEDINGS TO THE FEDERAL COURT
This case involves the plaintiff asking for the proceeding to be transferred to the Federal Court alleging that it has jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus in relation to a person detained under the Migration Act
Facts:
The plaintiff is currently detained at Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation in the custody of the first defendant (‘Minister’), who is the Minister responsible for administering the Migration Act 1958.
On 18 December 2020, the plaintiff commenced this proceeding. He contends that his continued detention is not lawful, and applied for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the defendants pursuant to Order 57 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.
The plaintiff submitted that the federal court has jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus in relation to a person detained under the Migration Act.
Issue:
Should the proceeding be transferred?
Law:
- Migration Act 1958 476A(1), 484
- Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 SS.5(1), 11(3)
Analysis:
The fact that the Federal Court is the venue for practically all disputes concerning migration law in this country is no accident. Part 8 of the Migration Act is structured such that the federal courts — not state Supreme Courts — are responsible for proceedings in relation to direct judicial review of migration decisions. The Migration Act is effectively a law that is ‘peculiar to that jurisdiction’ that ought be construed and administered by the Federal Court. Recognition of the specialisations of each court and the convenience that flows from having judicial officers with the appropriate expertise hear and determine matters is relevant to the interests of justice criterion.
Conclusion: In the interest of justice, it is more appropriate that this proceeding be determined by the Federal Court.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
