Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Truly Questionable Approach By Department Toward Status of Convicted PersonAustralian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 2903
- 6 Comments
Truly Questionable Approach By Department Toward Status of Convicted Person
The Migration Alliance has received a report about a bizarre, strange, astounding and insane situation from one of our colleagues!
Here’s the story:
A person who was charged with a criminal offence, and who out on bail and awaiting sentence in about a month’s time, approached our colleagues for advice and assistance.
He is presently an unlawful non-citizen as the visa he held has ceased.
There is no conventional bridging visa that he can apply for that would enable him to remain in Australia as a lawful non-citizen pending sentencing.
Reportedly, even though they are aware that this person is awaiting sentence, the advice given by the Department’s compliance branch was that he must “present them with a ticket to depart” and that he should simply “go back home and not worry about the pending court case”.
Also, the client apparently reported that the compliance section didn’t advise this person to approach either the prosecutor or the police to seek their assistance in securing a “criminal justice visa”.
So, the effect of the Department’s approach to this case would be to allow a person who is awaiting sentence (apparently following a plea of guilty) simply to leave Australia altogether without serving a day of his custodial sentence.
Say what? Can that possibly be right?
Wouldn’t the proper course really be for persons in this situation to be issued a criminal justice stay certificate under s 147 or 148 of the Migration Act, and for him then to be issued a criminal justice visa under s 155 of the Act?
Our colleagues have appropriately raised a concern that by simply telling/allowing a person who is awaiting sentencing: “Don’t worry, just go home” the Department’s actions in this case may be effectively perverting the course of justice – conduct that is declared to be a criminal offence under section 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (Cth).
Given how absolutely brutal the Department can be when it comes to depriving people of their liberty – starting with the cruel detention of asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru, to the many cases where people who have been permanent residents of Australia have had their visas cancelled on character grounds and have been held in immigration detention for prolonged periods of time after they have served their criminal sentences while they seek review of the cancellation decisions, and encompassing cases where people who are owed non-refoulement obligations and cannot be returned to their home countries have their visas cancelled and face the prospect of lifelong detention - it does seem weird, bizarre and astounding that the Department would take such a “laissez –faire” attitude with this case?
The approaches are contradictory, are they not?
Wouldn’t it be better for the Department to think this through and coordinate with law enforcement authorities? To make sure that people who have committed criminal offences don’t just “walk out” of Australia without “paying their debt to society” by serving the custodial sentences that the criminal justice system considers appropriate for their cases?
And to “re-think” its inhumane, disgraceful detention policies?
Your views?
Comments
-
Friday, 28 April 2017there is a criminal justice visa he can apply for
-
Friday, 28 April 2017
Bad person out of Australia at no cost to Australia = WIN!!
-
Sunday, 07 May 2017
Even applying the literal meaning to the term "Bad person" may lead to an unwise result. There would not be a single person left in Australia!
-
Monday, 01 May 2017
you cannot apply for a criminal justice visa yourself, it has to be the prosecutor. this is reminiscent of the case http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-cannabis-grow-house-accused-deported-despite-magistrates-warning-20151009-gk53xy.html
absolutely hilarious -
Wednesday, 03 May 2017
It is a concern that Immigration is giving that advice and of course they are not qualified to give Immigration advice, nor are they permitted to so that raises concerns too.
But at the same time taxpayer money is at stake if the applicant remains and we place them in goal (Jail). The chance of coming back to Australia are gone and there is no loss to the people of Austraila. Sure he/she will not have a Goal (jail) term but at the same time he/she cannot stay here either.
Re the detention policies: Nauru and Manus Island are better than the refugee camps they passed when they made a choice to migrate to Australia in front of all the waiting refugees in the camps.
Most Jails overseas are much worse that the refugee camps they passed and do not include food if you dont have a relative to bring it to you. Refugee camps offer food, shelter, medical support and a long wait. The asylum seekers paid huge sums of money to criminals to bring them to Australia. Question is do we reward criminal activities and do we support the very criminals business model for bringing in asylum seekers?
Choosing to take the risk and travel by boat to Australia is questionable since they could have sought Refuge in Indonesia (Muslim Country) or Malaysia (Muslim Country) or Singapore (Muslim country) at the very least. The depending on where they came from possibly other countries refugee camps.
Sine the majority of the asylum seekers are young males it raises many questions about legitimacy. The trouble they cause in the detention centres also raises concerns and it seems the attitude to this is different to that we would accept for prisoners or those in detention in Australia awaiting court hearings on charges against them.
Giving credibility to the passage to Australia by illegal means when bypassing many refugee camps is of concern to me
Immigration blog
Government departments in Australia amaze me no end. The closest competition DIBP has is from centrelink...who misspelled its own name today in a formal letter!