System Message:

Australian Immigration Daily News

Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form
Posted by on in General
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 188
  • 2 Comments

Challenge to Treatment of Refugees in Detention

How harsh is harsh? And how cruel is cruel?

Should immigration detention centres be operated on the model of prisons?

And are people who are being held in immigration detention facilities being treated with unnecessary severity?

Would Australians accept the practices that are being carried out in detention centres “out of sight”, and therefore “out of mind”, if those practices were exposed to the daylight of public scrutiny?

Well, consider the following case, SZRWS v Minister for Immigration & Ors (2017) FCCA 3101 (22 December 2017).

These proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court involved a challenge to a direction that was issued by the Australian Border Force that sought to restrict the types of foods that can be brought to persons being held in immigration detention by their visitors.

This direction (Australian Border Force Directive 016 -2017) was issued on 11 August 2017, and came into effect on 11 September 2017.

This directive sought to prohibit food from being brought to detainees during family visits unless it was:

  • Commercially packaged so it could not be tampered with, labeled, factory sealed and provided with a valid “expiry date”;
  • The packaging consisted only of a carton or soft plastic, and was not made of glass or metal;
  • The amount of food was limited to a quantity that could be consumed during the visit; and
  • The food was consumed only in the visiting area and not taken back to a detainee area.

The directive further prohibited the following kinds of foods from being brought to detainees during visits:

  • Perishable foods;
  • Frozen meals;
  • Fresh fruits and vegetables;
  • Tinned foods; and
  • Home cooked meals.

This directive was challenged in court by a detainee who is being held at the Villawood Detention Centre near Sydney.

He claimed that he had been held in detention, and thus separated from his family, for 5 years (!); that prior to the introduction of this direction, he had been able to spend the whole day with his family, but the direction had made it impossible for the family to eat culturally appropriate foods, and thus limited the time they could spend with him as there was nothing culturally appropriate for them to eat;  and that the sharing of a meal was important to help his family connect and enjoy some time together resembling real family time despite the circumstances of their being separated. 

The applicant in SZRWS was successful in obtaining an “interlocutory” (temporary) injunction to restrain the implementation of this direction against the person in detention.

And just recently, late last week, the Full Court of the Federal Court dismissed an appeal by the Minister for Home Affairs against this injunction – see Minister for Home Affairs v SZRWS (2018) FCAFC 51.

How far will the government go?  We have seen, in another case, that the government has introduced a policy enabling the confiscation of mobile phones and SIM cards from detainees. A challenge to that policy relating to mobile phones was rejected by Judge Smith of the Federal Circuit Court in the case of SZSZM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCCA 815i¸while a parallel challenge to this policy relating to the confiscation of mobile phones (in the case of ARJ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has apparently not yet been resolved).

What do you think of this?

Is it really necessary for the government to prohibit the families of detainees from bringing them home-cooked food to be eaten during visits?  The government defended its position here by claiming that the direction was necessary to protect the health of detainees, because: 1) cooked and raw food can become quickly contaminated with bacteria and can cause illness if left at room temperature; and 2) if food is not commercially packaged and sealed, there is a risk of “controlled and prohibited items entering the detention centre”.

Should an immigration detention centre be run just like a prison? Or not?

At least in respect of foods brought during visitation periods, the Federal Courts have answered this question, at least for the moment, that they should not be.

Your thoughts on this?

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:
0

Comments

  • Guest
    Ganasan Tuesday, 10 April 2018

    I have visisted the prison and the IDC- I find no difference between this two. Pretty appalling the asylum seekers are being treated like criminals. Australian government over spending money on detainees. SERCO is very happy. Poor tax payers!

  • Guest
    kevin Tuesday, 10 April 2018

    unfortunately there has to be detention centres some refugees are criminals many are not regarded as serious criminals but are generally regarded to have broken some Australian laws that is why they are in detention until their case has been resolved but to compare detention centers to prisons is emotive rubbish most detention staff are personable & detainees mostly have a lot more freedom than if they were in prison many prison staff are also professional are in general more stricter & controlling of convicted prisoners the above rules are there for a reason a detention centre is a secure area & certain types of food & other things are prohibited for valid reasons as for full day family visits contraband has been smuggled in through some of these visits in the past staff resources are both limited it is a place of security minimal standards have to apply, you are in a DETENTION CENTRE not a half way house

Leave your comment

Guest Thursday, 19 April 2018
Joomla SEF URLs by Artio

Immigration blog

Westpac Banner
The Importance of Professional Indemnity Insurance for Migration Agents
Every Migration Agent understands that the process...
Continue Reading...
Unusual Topic: Refusal of Criminal Justice Stay Visa
What is the appropriate relationship between the D...
Continue Reading...
Visa Cancellation and the Presumption of Innocence
How broad are the Minister's powers to cancel a vi...
Continue Reading...
Room for Hope: PIC 4020 Not A Brick Wall in Every Case!
Is there any way to salvage a client’s situation i...
Continue Reading...
Understanding the Australian health care system
As your health and care partner, Bupa understand t...
Continue Reading...