Commission submission - Martizi
1.1 On 5 March 2002, the Full Court granted leave to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") to intervene in this appeal, pursuant to s.11(1)(o) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth).
Summary
1.1 On 5 March 2002, the Full Court granted leave to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") to intervene in this appeal, pursuant to s.11(1)(o) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth).
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. W373 of 2001 WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. W378 of 2001
On appeal from a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Between:
SIMON ODHIAMBO Appellant and
PETER MARTIZI Appellant And: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (INTERVENING)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On 5 March 2002, the Full Court granted leave to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") to intervene in this appeal, pursuant to s.11(1)(o) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth).
1.2 The Commission's submissions are primarily directed to the legal obligations imposed on the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") and the learned trial judge by Part 7 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Migration Act") and the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 (Cth) ("the Immigration (GOC) Act").
1.3 The issues raised by this case depend upon the effect of s.6 of the Immigration (GOC) Act, which makes the Respondent the guardian of "every non-citizen who arrives in Australia after the commencement of this Act". Secondly, they involve the effect of a purported delegation by the Minister pursuant to s.5 of the Act. There has been no relevant amendment to the Immigration (GOC) Act since the compilation prepared on 7 February 2001.
1.4 To the extent that they are relevant, reference is also made to the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Regulations 1946 (Cth) ("the 1946 Regulations") which came into operation on 30 December 1946.[1] Those Regulations, together with amending statutory rules, were in force until repealed by the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Regulations 2001 (Cth), which commenced on 1 November 2001. [2] The "Child Welfare laws" identified for the purposes of reg.4 of the 1946 Regulations are defined, in relation to Western Australia, as the Child Welfare Act. [3]
1.5 The relevant provisions of the Migration Act in relation to the review of each decision in this case are those found in Reprint No. 7. The new Part 8, containing the privative clause provision, was introduced by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001 (Cth). Schedule 1 to the Act, which contained the new Part 8, commenced on 2 October 2001. [4] The new provisions do not apply in relation to an application for judicial review which had been made before the commencement of the Schedule. [5] In the matter of Martizi, the application for an order of review was filed on 18 April 2001 [6] and, in the matter of Odhiambo, on 8 May 2001. [7] Accordingly, the grounds of review in each matter were those identified in s.476 of the Migration Act, prior to the repeal and replacement of that provision.
2. SUMMARY OF THE COMMISSION'S SUBMISSIONS
2.1 In summary, the Commission submits that:
(a) The instrument of delegation signed by the Minister on 1 December 1999 is not a valid exercise of the power conferred by s.5 of the Immigration (GOC) Act as it involves -
(i) global delegation in relation to a class of children, the membership of which will change from time to time; (ii) a joint delegation to a range of individuals; (iii) a delegation where the repositories of responsibilities may not even be aware of the existence of a particular child.
(b) The instrument of delegation signed by the Minister on 1 December 1999 may otherwise not be constitutionally valid as the conferral of guardianship functions on State officers has is not been authorised by State law and directly interferes with functions of State government.
(c) Part 7 of the Migration Act and the Immigration (GOC) Act should be interpreted consistently with Australia's human rights obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child ("CROC"). In particular, the RRT and the learned trial Judge should have declined to exercise their respective powers and jurisdiction until satisfied that all steps necessary to ensure protection of the best interests of the Appellants as minors had been taken.
(d) In particular, the RRT and the Federal Court were obliged to ensure that:
- the Appellants had a guardian for the purposes of the proceedings;
- appropriate steps had been taken by the guardian to provide the Appellants with legal advice and assistance;
- if no guardian were appointed, or if the appointed guardian had not so acted, the proceedings were adjourned pending such steps being taken; and
- the Appellants were advised that it was in their best interests to obtain legal advice and assistance in relation to the application.
(e) The RRT erred in failing to apply correct principles in the assessments of the factual claims.
(f) The RRT erred in failing to consider relevant matters in the assessment of the credibility of the Appellants.
(g) The RRT erred in failing to address whether Kenya might seek to repatriate the Appellant Odhimabo to Sudan if he were returned to Kenya.
(h) The RRT erred in failing to give adequate consideration to the possibility that the Appellant Martizi might face Convention based persecution if he were returned to Rwanda or the Democratic Republic of Congo.
(i) The trial judge erred in failing to set aside the decisions of the RRT.
3. APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW Statutory construction
3.1 It is a long-established presumption that a statute is to be interpreted and applied, as far as its language admits, so as not to be inconsistent with the comity of nations and established rules of international law. [8] In the USA it has been said that if the legislature intends to effect inconsistency "it must express its intention with irresistible clearness to induce a Court to believe that it entertained it." [9] The High Court has expressed the presumption as operating in cases of ambiguity. Where there is ambiguity, the Court has held, courts should favour a construction of a statute which accords with the obligations of Australia under an international treaty. [10] This is because common sense indicates that Parliament intended to legislate in accordance with Australia's international obligations. [11]
3.2 The concept of 'ambiguity', in this context, is not intended to impose a severe constraint upon reference to international obligations. In principle, it is merely the obverse of the coin of Parliamentary supremacy: if Parliament expresses a clear intention to legislate in consistency with Australia's international obligations, that intention must be given effect by the courts. As noted by Mason CJ and Deane J in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh: [12]
"In this context, there are strong reasons for rejecting a narrow conception of ambiguity. If the language of the legislation is susceptible of a construction which is consistent with the terms of the international instrument and the obligations which it imposes on Australia, then that construction should prevail."
Other members of the Court have confirmed that a narrow conception of ambiguity is to be rejected. [13]
The development of the common law
3.3 In more recent times, the function of the courts in developing the common law has been freely acknowledged. [14] It is now beyond dispute that in appropriate cases, judges carry out their function by developing and refining the common law. [15] In Mabo [No. 2], Brennan J stated: [16]
"The common law does not necessarily conform with international law, but international law is a legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law, especially when international law declares the existence of universal human rights."
3.4 It has also been said that where the common law is uncertain, the Court should prefer an answer in conformity with international norms. [17] It would be incongruous that Australia should adhere to international human rights treaties such as the CROC if Australian courts did not, in some fashion, recognise the entitlements contained therein. [18] As Mason CJ and Deane J stated in Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh: [19]
"ratification by Australia of an international convention is not be dismissed as a merely platitudinous or ineffectual act, particularly when the instrument evidences internationally accepted standards to be applied by courts and administrative authorities in dealing with basic human rights affecting the family and children. Rather, ratification of a convention is a positive statement by the executive government of this country to the world and to the Australian people that the executive government and its agencies will act in accordance with the Convention [on the Rights of the Child]."
To adopt such an approach is merely to recognise that values of justice and human rights are just as much aspirations of the contemporary Australian legal system as they are of the international legal regime. [20]
Construction principles
3.5 Part 7 of the Migration Act and the Immigration (GOC) Act should be interpreted consistently with Australia's human rights obligations. The international human rights principles which bear upon the issues before the Court and to which the Court ought have regard in the application of the principles of statutory construction are the following:
(a) the best interests of the child principle - article 3(1) of the CROC; [21] (b) the right of the child to be heard - article 12 of the CROC; [22] (c) the right to special protection and assistance - articles 20 and 22 of the CROC;[23] and (d) the right to legal and other appropriate assistance in article 37(d) of the CROC .[24]
3.6 The CROC was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1989. Australia ratified the CROC on 17 December 1990 and it came into effect for Australia on 16 January 1991. The CROC applies to all people below the age of eighteen years [25] within the Australian jurisdiction (including those who enter the country without authorisation). That is, the CROC applies to minors who are asylum seekers or refugees and also minors whose applications for refugee status have been refused.
Best Interests of the Child
3.7 That the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children is one of the general principles of the CROC.[26] This principle was first recognised in the 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child.[27] It requires that the best interests of children be the active consideration of all administrative authorities, legislative bodies and "courts of law" and taken into account as a primary consideration. [28] In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh a majority in the High Court accepted that the provisions of article 3 were intended to apply to all "actions" that have consequences for children and not merely those that were directed at children. [30]
Right of the child to be heard
3.8 Article 12 is also a general principle of fundamental importance relevant to all aspects of implementation of the CROC and to the interpretation of all other articles. [31] The Committee on the Rights of the Child [32] has consistently emphasized that the child must be regarded as an active subject of rights. Article 12 underlines children's status as individuals with fundamental human rights, views and feelings of their own. [33] Paragraph 2 specifically provides the child with the right to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting him or her, including proceedings involving the determination of refugee status, and that those views be given "due weight".
Special Protection and Assistance
3.9 Unaccompanied children [34] seeking refugee status are among the most vulnerable groups in the world. The language and cultural barriers normally faced by refugees in attempting to establish their claims are compounded, in the case of children, by their lack of maturity and the fact that the status may have arisen from situations or experiences of their relatives rather than issues which the children have experienced themselves.
3.10 Articles 20 and 22 of the CROC recognise this vulnerability of unaccompanied children and place obligations on State parties to provide "special protection and assistance" (article 20) to the child "temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment" [35] and "appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance" (article 22) to refugee children. In addition, article 37(d) provides that "every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance".
3.11 The international community has recognised that unaccompanied asylum seeking children warrant special attention in the process of determining their claims to refugee status. [36] The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ("UNHCR") has developed two sets of guidelines which detail the essential safeguards for the status determination of such children: Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum (February 1997) and Refugee Children: Guidelines on Protection and Care (1994) ("the UNHCR's 1994 and 1997 Guidelines").
3.12 The UNHCR's 1994 and 1997 Guidelines mandate:
(a) the appointment of an independent and formally accredited organisation which will appoint a guardian or adviser as soon as the unaccompanied child is identified. The guardian or adviser should have the necessary expertise in the field of childcaring, so as to ensure that the interests of the child are safeguarded, and that the child's legal, social, medical and psychological needs are appropriately covered during the refugee status determination procedures; [37]
(b) the tailoring of the refugee determination procedures to meet the needs of children [38] and in particular,
(i) a child's refugee status application should be given priority and determined promptly and fairly; [39] (ii) an asylum-seeking child should be represented by an adult who is familiar with the child's background and interests and able to promote a decision that is in the child's best interests;[40] (iii) access should also be given to a qualified legal representative; [41] and (iv) asylum seeking children should be kept informed about the refugee determination process, where they stand in the process, what decisions have been made and the possible consequences. [42]
4. THE STATUTORY SCHEME
Guardianship
4.1 The Immigration (GOC) Act states in s.6:
The Minister shall be guardian of the person, and of the estate in Australia, of every non-citizen child [43] who arrives in Australia after the commencement of this Act to the exclusion of the father and mother and every other guardian of the child, and shall have, as guardian, the same rights, powers, duties, obligations and liabilities as a natural guardian of the child would have, until the child reaches the age of 18 years or leaves Australia permanently .
4.2 The effect of this provision was considered by North J in two judgements in X v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. [44] In these cases, North J found that the duty of the guardian under s.6 is to protect the interests of the person under care, for example, by ensuring that the person under care is properly fed, clothed, housed and educated. [45] The guardian is also obliged to accord to children all of the fundamental human rights enshrined in the CROC [46] and must act at all times in the best interests of the child.[47] North J in X v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and French J in Jaffari v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs have both held that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to supervise the Minister's function as guardian. [48]
4.3 The effect of s.6 of the Immigration (GOC) Act, with particular reference to overseas adoptions, has also been considered in a number of cases including Re adoption of S [49] and Re Application of K. [50] In a passage in the former case, adopted in the second, Blackburn J stated, after referring to the terms of s.6: [51]
"The point is that the section makes the Minister the guardian and does not say that the Minister is to supersede the parents for all purposes whatever."
Whether there are limits to the powers which may be exercised by the Minister, and if so, what they are, is not relevant for present purposes. It will, however, be necessary to consider specific aspects of the powers which may be conferred on a guardian, in relation to the possible release of a non-citizen child from immigration detention and in relation to the commencement and maintenance of visa review proceedings, both before the RRT and in the Court.
4.4 At common law powers of guardianship include the powers of the "natural guardian", a guardian appointed by will and a court appointed guardian. As noted by Blackburn J in Re adoption of S[52] the "natural guardian" meant the father and, after his death, the mother of the child. Putting to one side testamentary guardians, the role of alternative guardian was a matter to be decided by the Court. It did so in exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction. The circumstances in which a child may now be made a ward of the court and the powers which may be exercised in relation to the child are largely dealt with by statute. In Bennett v Minister for Community Welfare the statutory regime which placed wards under the guardianship of the Director of Community Welfare was accepted as sufficient to create a fiduciary relationship between the Director and the ward. [53]
4.5 By 1973, the Guardianship Act 1973 (UK) spoke of "parental rights and duties", a less old-fashioned term, but one which gave rise to some uncertainty.[54] Legislation has also changed in this country, so that the Family Law Act now speaks of parenting orders, residence orders, contact orders and specific issues orders. [55] Specific provision was made by the Family Law Reform Act 1995 (Cth), by way of transitional provisions [56] which sought to identify the effect of orders under the old Act, including "old guardianship orders". In terms which were thought no longer to be satisfactory, the old Family Law Act provided that a guardian had "responsibility for the long-term welfare of the child".[57] Sometimes described as "rights relating to the daily care of the child". What is clear, however, is that the concept of a guardian has no meaning except with respect to the relationship between two individuals.
4.6 The power of delegation conferred by s.5 of the Immigration (GOC) Act is granted in relation to "any non-citizen child or class of non-citizen children". The first question raised by the conferral of a power in those terms is whether it can be exercised globally and in relation to people who do not fall within the category so specified at the time of the delegation. The question is whether a delegation may be ambulatory in effect. The fact that the relevant delegation in operation at the time the Appellants arrived in Australia was global in its terms, may also have consequential significance for the other questions dealt with below.
4.7 The issue is whether it is necessary for the Minister to exercise his power of delegation by conferring his powers on a specific officer or authority of "the Commonwealth or of any State or Territory". Putting to one side the question of a delegation to a Commonwealth officer, the instrument of 1 December 1999 seeks to delegate all the Minister's powers to over 50 State and Territory officers or authorities, identified by departmental description. [58] There is no doubt that the law understands the concept of "joint guardianship". However, the concept operates within a quite limited framework. In particular, the concept of shared duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of children is applied in relation to the parents of the child and is identified as one of the underlying principles of Part VII of the Family Law Act. [59] However, it would rarely be the case that the best interests of a child would permit or require a guardianship order which jointly appointed a range of individuals in disparate parts of the country, many of whom would have no connection with the individual concerned, or even know of his or her existence. To the extent that the document signed by the Minister on 1 December 1999 purports to have such an effect, it cannot be a valid exercise of the power conferred by s.5 of the Immigration (GOC) Act.
4.8 Under the child welfare laws in the various States and Territories, the means by which a government officer obtains powers and functions of wardship is almost invariably by way of court order. That was undoubtedly so in relation to Western Australia. [60] Regulation 4 of the 1946 Regulations purported to provide [61] that the child welfare laws of a State shall not apply "in relation to any non-citizen child in respect of whom the Minister has delegated his powers and functions under s.5 of the Act".[62] However, the regulation further provides that the State officer will have the rights and powers which would be exercisable by him or her "in relation to a child" if committed to his or her custody or care or if a ward of the state. Reference is made to the regulation, not for the purpose of construing the Act, but to provide a more complete picture of the powers and functions of guardianship with which the Act purports to deal. That picture confirms that the relationship is indeed an individual one, involving powers and functions which must be exercised in the best interests of the child, in accordance with the principles set out above. A delegation of powers and functions as guardian in relation to a particular child is readily understandable in this context: however, the reference in s.5 to a possible delegation in relation to a "class of children" should be read so as to conform to a proper understanding of the concept of guardian. Accordingly, a global delegation in relation to a class of children, the membership of which will change from time to time, would not be valid. As no more precisely defined class can be gleaned from the instrument in question, the delegation appears to be invalid.
4.9 If the instrument otherwise conformed to the terms of the Immigration (GOC) Act, a question would arise as to whether a power which could be exercised in those terms was constitutionally valid. [63] There is no doubt that s.5 purports to authorise, in express terms, a power to delegate to an officer or authority of a State. This in turn requires attention to the concept of delegation.
4.10 In relation to the powers of a guardian, the delegation must involve, not the conferral of a benefit, but the conferral of responsibilities and obligations. Nor are the responsibilities and obligations of an entirely discretionary nature, such that they may be exercised or not, from time to time, at the discretion of the repository of the power. A guardian has ongoing mandatory obligations which must be exercised as occasion requires.
4.11 The constitutional power to legislate with respect to "immigration and emigration" [64] allows the Parliament to make laws with respect to the guardianship of non-citizen children in Australia [65], at least within certain limits which would no doubt include unlawful non-citizen children in Australia. However, such a legislative power does not permit the Parliament to conscript the public service of the States to carry out the necessary executive functions to ensure the proper execution and maintenance of the Commonwealth statute. [66] Such a law would directly interfere with what are "clearly State functions of government" and, not being a law of general operation, would contravene both limbs of the prohibition identified in the Melbourne Corporation Case.[67] As noted by Mason J in Victoria v Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation: [68]
"If for the protection of the States as constituent elements in the Federation an implication needs to be made, then the implication that should be made is that the Commonwealth will not in the exercise of its powers discriminate against or 'single out' the States so as to impose some special burden or disability upon them, unless the nature of a specific power otherwise indicates, and will not inhibit or impair the continued existence of the States or their capacity to function."
4.12 The passage was cited with approval by Brennan J in The Tasmanian Dam Case.[69] At the very least, no such power can be conferred on the executive of a State government, without the consent of the State concerned.
5. THE RRT PROCEEDINGS
The "best interests" principle Appointment of a guardian
5.1 The RRT erred in law in failing to identify its legal obligations under Part 7 of the Migration Act, and the Immigration (GOC) Act, and in failing to apply the law to the circumstances of this case. As child applicants, the best interests of the Appellants should have been a primary consideration at all stages of the processing of their claims.[70] The UNHCR's 1994 and 1997 Guidelines provide valuable guidance on how the children's best interests under the CROC should have been served by the RRT. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated that the UNHCR's 1994 Guidelines were "fully inspired by the Convention and shaped in light of its general principles".[71] The UNHCR has stated that a role of the 1997 Guidelines is to "promote awareness of the special needs of unaccompanied children and the rights reflected in the Convention on the Rights of the Child". [72]
5.2 The RRT should have acted in the best interests of the Appellants by ensuring that the Appellants had a guardian for the purpose of the proceedings. As highlighted in the UNHCR's 1994 and 1997 Guidelines, the role of the guardian in this context is to ensure that the child's legal, social, medical and psychological needs are appropriately met during the RRT hearing. As the guardian should have a personal knowledge of the Appellant, his background and unique circumstances, the guardian would also be able to ensure that the RRT considers all of the Appellants' claims.
5.3 It does not appear to be disputed that neither of the Appellants had a person exercising guardianship responsibilities on their behalf for the purposes of the RRT proceedings. As outlined above [73], the Respondent is the Appellants' guardian by virtue of s.6 of the Immigration (GOC) Act. On 1 December 1999 , the Respondent purported to delegate all of this powers and functions under the Immigration (GOC) Act (excluding two sets of powers which are not relevant for these purposes) to various office holders in the Western Australian Department for Family and Children's Services ("WADFCS"). However, the affidavit sworn by Ms Katrina Kannis in each matter demonstrates no basis for thinking that the purported delegations to the WADFCS were treated by the relevant Commonwealth officers as operative. First, she does not seek to annex the relevant delegation, nor does she refer to it. Secondly, where reference is made to a Western Australian government department, it is to the "Department for Community Development", without reference to the terminology "Department for Family and Children's Services". [74] The substance of the relevant paragraphs are as follows:
"35. At the time of the appellants reception in the Centre, DCD [Department for Community Development] was not informed, as at that time DCD had no involvement with the Centre. DCD's involvement with the Centre commenced in March 2001. 36. DCD was not requested by DIMIA to become involved with the appellant until late February 2002." [75]
In fact, Mr Gary Dell-Bray, the Area Manager for "Family and Children's Services" in Port Hedland, was present during both of the Appellants' RRT hearings. In the Appellant Martizi's hearing, Mr Dell-Bray is described as a "support person" and Mr Martizi is informed that he is independent of the detention centre and the Respondent's Department. [76] In the Appellant Odhiambo's hearing, Mr Dell-Bray is described as a "friend" who is able to assist Mr Odhiambo if he does not understand anything or requires an additional explanation. Mr Dell-Bray does not take part in either proceeding. [77] It is clear that the Appellants met Mr Dell-Bray for the first time on the day of their RRT hearings and had no longer than five minutes to speak to him prior to the commencement of those hearings. [78] Neither Appellant had any further contact with him after this day. [79]
5.4 The Appellants may have been entitled to bridging visas which would entitle them to be released from the detention centre. [80] No responsible guardian could ignore the possibility that a child might be entitled to release from detention. A critical element of the criteria for a bridging visa is that the applicant is an eligible non-citizen as identified in sub-reg. 2.20(7). [81] Sub-reg. 2.20(7) concerns a non-citizen who, amongst other things, has "not turned 18" and -
(d) in respect of whom a child welfare authority of a State or Territory has certified that release from detention is in the best interests of the non-citizen.
If the Appellant had been in the guardianship of an officer of the WADFCS, it is inconceivable that this authority would have been so derelict in its duty as not to have given consideration to the availability of a bridging visa which would entitle the Appellants to be released from immigration detention. It follows that no such guardianship relationship existed: it further follows that the purported delegation by the Minister of his powers was recognised by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs as being ineffective or invalid.
5.5 Prior to the execution of the further instrument of delegation on 11 January 2002, which did not occur until some months after the judgment of the trial judge, there appears to have been no other delegation in force.
5.6 On the basis that there was no valid delegation at the relevant times, the question is whether the Respondent personally was properly able to act as guardian of the Appellants and did so.
5.7 It is clear that the Respondent personally, or through an officer in his Department, could not properly fulfil his guardianship responsibilities in relation to the Appellants while he was the party on the opposite side of the record. [82] This conflict of interest prevents him from undertaking the role set out in paragraph 4.2.
5.8 There is limited evidence to suggest that any actions undertaken by the Minister were directed to the exercise of his powers as guardian. The evidence of Ms Kannis, of a general nature, is irrelevant. She swore each of her affidavits in response to a direction made by this Court that the Respondent file an affidavit "describing the performance of guardianship duties in respect of" each Appellant, pursuant to s.5 of the Immigration (GOC) Act.[83] She asserts that she was a delegate of the Minister in relation to his guardianship powers and functions.[84] However, as already noted, the delegation referred to was not made until 11 January 2002.
5.9 The affidavits of Ms Kannis do indicate that the Minister did not personally undertake any of his guardianship responsibilities in respect of these Appellants. Many of the Appellants' physical needs, such as to be clothed, fed and housed, were met through the provision of services by Australian Correctional Management Pty Ltd, the custodial authority which runs the detention centre in which they were held.[85] However, the critical questions of how the proceedings should be run and whether the Appellants should seek bridging visas could not conceivably fall within the functions of a custodial authority.
5.10 In her affidavits, Ms Kannis provides a partial quotation from clause 9.2.1 of the "Immigration Detention Standards", which are apparently imported by some means which is not identified, into a contract between the Commonwealth and Australasian Correctional Services Pty Ltd, who appear to provide custodial and other services at the detention centre. [86] There is no suggestion that the contract involved a delegation of powers under s.5 of the Immigration (GOC) Act. Nor does it appear that the contract purports to be an exercise by the Minister of his guardianship powers, or to be anything beyond a standard arrangement whereby the government has contracted for services in running a custodial establishment.
Legal advice and representation
5.11 The RRT should also have acted in the best interests of the Appellants by ensuring that appropriate steps had been taken by the Appellants' guardian to provide the Appellants with legal advice and assistance in relation to their application for review.
5.12 It is clear that no appropriate steps were taken by the guardian to provide the Appellants with legal advice and assistance in relation to their applications for review.
5.13 Ms Kannis does not suggest that the Minister provided assistance in relation to the protection visa application and associated bridging visa application made by the Appellants on 17 June 2000.[87] In relation to the application for review to the RRT, from the Minister's refusal of his visa application, it appears that the Appellants had available to them legal assistance of the same general category as is provided to all persons in detention pursuant to the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme. It is conceded that that Scheme did not extend beyond assistance with the RRT:[88] it is also apparently conceded that the solicitors who are meant to assist the Appellants were in Melbourne. Mr Odhiambo describes the assistance he received from the solicitors in paragraphs 7-9 of his affidavit. [89] The Appellant, Peter Martizi, saw a person whose name was not known to him, but whom he describes as a lawyer from Macpherson & Kelley, at Port Hedland. [90] The lawyer apparently attended the interview and thereafter did not trouble to contact his client. The lawyer did not assist to fill out an application to the RRT, although he appears to have been allocated a lawyer from the same firm of solicitors for the purpose of the hearing.[91] The lawyer apparently attended the RRT hearing by video conference, but did not speak. [92] He had no further contact from the lawyer. [93]
5.14 There is a question of whether the Carltona principle [94] could apply to the exercise of individual powers of guardianship by a Commonwealth officer. Although the idea that a Minister may need to act by an agent lies at the heart of the Carltona principle, the principle has been described as relating to "administrative functions".[95] However, in circumstances where there is an express statutory power of delegation and the power is the exercise by the State of the responsibilities of parents of children during their minority, that principle should not be applied. [96]
5.15 As the guardian of the Appellants, it is clear that the Minister could not act for them or advise them in the present proceedings, because he was the party on the opposite side of the record. [97]
5.16 In X v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, [98] North J held that it was not necessary for the young person involved to have a tutor appointed for the purposes of commencing proceedings in the Federal Court. Following the decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in Haines v Leves, [99] a case involving a complaint by a minor under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), North J held that the proceedings were not invalid for want of a tutor.[100] However, it does not follow that minors are not entitled to receive proper advice and assistance for the purpose of pursuing statutory claims. [101] Rather, his Honour accepted, as a matter of principle, that "the rights sought to be vindicated are fundamental human rights", which not only fashioned the extent of the common law principle, [102] but was also relevant to the exercise by the Court of its own powers and functions.[103] In Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare Mason CJ, Deane and Toohey JJ found that the statutory guardian had a positive duty to obtain independent legal advice for his ward with respect to the possible existence of a cause of action arising out of circumstances in which the ward sustained the amputation of four fingers of his left hand.
5.17 The importance of the Appellants having assistance from a guardian who is able to arrange the supply of competent and independent legal advice is demonstrated by the affidavit of Ms Le Sueur of 2 March 2002. [104]
5.18 In the case of both Appellants their ability to present arguments at the RRT hearing was, in many respects, critical to their case. This was because the RRT relied heavily on the evidence given by each of the Appellants at their hearings, and their explanations for the inadequate and conflicting nature of this evidence, in the determination of their applications.
Credit findings
5.19 The RRT made adverse credit findings against each Appellant in a comprehensive manner, rejecting their claims in whole. The UNHCR's 1997 Guidelines provide that:
"Although the same definition of a refugee applies to all individuals regardless of their age, in the examination of the factual elements of the claim of an unaccompanied child, particular regard should be given to the circumstances such as the child's stage of development, his or her possibly limited knowledge of conditions in the country of origin, and their significance to the legal concept of refugee status, as well as his/her special vulnerability. Children may manifest their fears in ways different from adults. Therefore, in the examination of their claims, it may be necessary to have greater regard to certain objective factors, and to determine, based on these factors, whether a child may be presumed to have a well-founded fear of persecution." [105]
5.20 In assessing the factual basis of the Appellants' claims, the RRT failed to properly take into account and assess the following relevant matters:
- the age, maturity and state of development of the Appellants both at the time of the hearing and at the time of the relevant events occurring;
- the capacity of the Appellants to communicate their experiences and the impact of any trauma suffered by the Appellants at a young age on this capacity, (for example, no reference is made to the comments by the interviewing officer in her Stowaway Interview Report dated 13 May 2000 that the Appellant Martizi "became emotional" at the end of the interview when discussing Rwanda); [106] and
- the special vulnerability of the Appellants given that they did not have a guardian for the purposes of the proceedings, nor a legal representative present at the hearing.In fact, in neither case was the applicant able to attend physically before the RRT member: each hearing was conducted by video-conference link.
5.21 In Uthayakumar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [107] the Federal Court of Canada considered a case very similar to that of the Appellants. The applicants seeking recognition of their refugee status in that case where two unaccompanied minors - a 12 year old boy and his 14 year old sister. The Convention Refugee Determination Division ("the Panel") [108] rejected their claims for refugee status as they did not find the applicants' testimony credible. The Panel found the 12 year old boy was "evasive" and that his explanation of how he had arrived in Canada was not plausible. It found the 14 year old girl's testimony with regard to journey to Canada contradictory.
The Federal Court held that there was a reviewable error in the Panel's failure to attach any credibility to the applicants' testimony. The Court held that:
"[T]he panel clearly did not take into consideration the fact that the applicants were ten and twelve years of age when they travelled to Canada and that these two children clearly did not have to keep a log throughout their travels. Furthermore, it was quite possible, and perhaps even likely realistic, that both of the applicant could not precisely remember all of the circumstances of the journey, which must have been very stressful under the circumstances."
5.22 Comments made by the Panel in another Canadian case are also apposite:
"I agree that a claimant who is a child may have some difficulty recounting the events which have led him or her to flee the country. Often the child claimant's parents will not have shared distressing events with the claimant, with the intention of protecting the child. As a result, the child claimant, in testifying at his or her refugee hearing, may appear to be vague and uninformed about important events which have led up to acts of persecution. Before a trier of fact concludes that a child is not credible, the child's sources of knowledge, his or her maturity, and intelligence must be assessed. The severity of the persecution alleged must be considered and whether past events have traumatized the child and hindered his or her ability to recount details." [109]
Burden of proof
5.23 As the Appellants were unaccompanied minors giving evidence without the assistance of a guardian or a legal representative, the RRT should properly have assessed their claims by adopting a liberal application of the principle of the "benefit of the doubt". In not so doing, it failed to act in accordance with the best interests of the Appellants and effectively cast a burden of proof upon them which was inconsistent with the requirements of the Convention.
5.24 The UNHCR's 1994 Guidelines provide that:
"The problem of "proof" is very great in every refugee status determination. It is compounded in the case of children. For this reason, the decision on a child's refugee status calls for a liberal application of the benefit of the doubt. This means that should there be some hesitation regarding the credibility of the child's story, the burden is not on the child to provide proof, but the child should be given the benefit of the doubt."
5.25 In the case of adult asylum seekers, there has been recognition by the domestic legal system of a similar principle. [110] For example, in Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Beaumont J commented that:
"As Grahl-Madsen has noted (The Status of Refugees in International Law at 145-6), in the proof of refugeehood, a liberal attitude on the part of the decision-maker is called for, since it is a well-known fact that a person who claims to be a refugee may have difficulties in proving his allegation (cf. Gaudron J in Chan at 413); and it would go counter to the principle of good faith in the interpretation and application of treaties if a contracting state "should place on a suppliant a burden of proof which he, in the nature of things, could not possibly cope with." This should not, however, lead to "an uncritical acceptance of any and all allegations made by suppliants."
An even more careful application of this principle is required in the determination of applications of unaccompanied children for protection visas.
Specific issues: Odhiambo
5.26 At the time of the RRT hearing on 2 March 2001, this Appellant was 16 year of age and required an interpreter to participate in the hearing. The RRT found that the applicant had fabricated his claim of his origin in Sudan and his claims of persecution [112] and, in reaching its conclusion, placed "some weight" on a language analysis which found that there were no traces of Dinka (the language the Appellant claims was his mother tongue). [113]
5.27 The RRT's primary reasons for rejecting the Appellants' claim appear to have been the Appellant's vagueness and lack of local and geographical knowledge of Sudan and his explanations of how he left Sudan (the RRT found that he had given several different versions). [114] While the RRT stated that it was cognizant that traumatic events, such as the claimed death of the Appellant's father at the time he fled his country can affect the "behaviour and memory of people" [115] he found against the Appellant. In doing so, the RRT failed to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and effectively cast a burden of proof on this Appellant.
Specific issues: Martizi
5.28 At the time of the RRT hearing on 2 March 2001, this Appellant was also 16 years of age and required an interpreter to participate in the hearing. There were essentially two reasons why the RRT was not satisfied that this Appellant was a national of Rwanda: the evidence given by the Appellant (which the RRT found was internally inconsistent as to where he was born and showed a lack of familiarity with the region) [116] and a language analysis which found that the Swahili spoken by this Appellant bears no trace of the Swahili spoken in Rwanda. [117]
5.29 In relation to the Appellant's lack of familiarity with the area he alleged was his home region in Rwanda, the RRT accepted that this Appellant's young age at the time he left this country may have caused his confusion. [118] However, the RRT failed to give the Appellant the same benefit of the doubt in relation to his confusion over his place of birth. While the RRT noted that the Appellant's confusion in this respect may have been because Mr Martizi was too young or too traumatized by events to know where he was living as a child [119], these factors were used to support a finding against the Appellant rather than as explaining the deficiencies in this Appellant's evidence and entitling him to the benefit of the doubt.
6. FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS Odhiambo
6.1 The trial judge in the Odhiambo appeal was also obliged to ensure that the Court's proceedings were conducted in accordance with the best interests of the Appellant as a minor: the trial judge therefore erred in determining this Appellant's application in circumstances where those obligations had not been met. In particular, the trial judge should have ensured that this Appellant had a guardian and the benefit of legal advice and representative for the purposes of the proceedings.
6.2 This Appellant did not have a guardian for his Federal Court appeal. As outlined in the affidavits of Ms Katrina Kannis the WADFCS was not aware of the existence of this Appellant until late February 2002. [120] There was no representative of the WADFCS present at his hearing.
6.3 Nor did this Appellant receive any legal advice or have the benefit of a legal representative. Mr Odhiambo deposes in his affidavit to the fact that:
- his lawyer from Macpherson and Kelley did not explain the RRT's decision to him - this task was to some extent undertaken by other detainees at the PHIRPC; [121]
- a detainee at the PHIRPC assisted him to fill in his Notice of Appeal to the Federal Court;[122]
- he received no legal advice or assistance in relation to this appeal;[123] and
- he appeared without legal representation at the hearing before Justice Tamberlin on 8 August 2001. [124]
Martizi
6.4 The circumstances of the Appellant Martizi vary from those noted above in one significant respect, namely that he had pro bono counsel appearing for him before the Court.
6.5 Whilst the Court was courteously grateful for the assistance, [125] counsel appears to have restricted his argument to the ground identified in the notice of appeal [126] which was not sustainable. Mr Martizi's affidavit of 4 March 2002 deals with his contact with counsel at par 15. It does not provide any basis for confidence that adequate assistance was obtained. Certainly no case was presented on the grounds raised in this Court.
7. CONSEQUENCES OF ABSENCE OF GUARDIAN RRT proceedings: general
7.1 The next question concerns the effect, for the purposes of these proceedings, of the absence of a proper guardian to assist the Appellants. To consider this aspect of the matter it is necessary to advert to the operation of s.476 of the Migration Act, prior to its recent replacement. The relevant question is whether the errors identified above and by the Appellants in their Second Further Amended Notices of Appeal fall within one of the paragraphs of sub-s.476(1), or whether they involve a breach of the rules of natural justice, other than a procedural error identified in s.476(1)(a), which would necessitate further proceedings in the High Court.
7.2 The role of a guardian, and the obligation of a guardian to act in the best interests of a minor, are principles which derive both from the Immigration (GOC) Act, common law principles regarding the status of minors and, in relation to the Federal Court, the exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction. Dealing only with the exercise of power by the RRT, the problem may be identified as a failure on the part of the RRT to consider and apply applicable legal principles to the facts before it. The relevant factual findings included, for present purposes, the age of the Appellant in each case.[127] In each case, the RRT made no finding as to the actual age of the applicant before it, because, as it must be inferred, it did not think that such a fact had any bearing on the conduct of the review. If, as a matter of law, the Appellants were entitled to the assistance of a properly appointed and involved guardian, neither received his legal entitlements before the RRT. The failure of the RRT to understand and apply that principle constituted an error of law within the terms of s.476(1)(e).
7.3 It may be suggested that such a failure constitutes no more than the failure to take into account a relevant consideration in the exercise of the RRT's power. That is an excluded ground of review, but only for the purposes of s.476(1)(d), dealing with the ground identified as "improper exercise of the power conferred by this Act". [128] However, as pointed out by McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [129] that limitation does not prevent review for error of law, if the error otherwise falls within par (e) of s.476(1). [130]
8. DISCRETIONARY FACTORS
8.1 There remains a question as to whether the errors identified above should give rise to relief in this Court in relation to the RRT decision in each case.
8.2 There are two considerations of importance in thinking that relief should follow. The first is that the failure to accord the Appellants the statutory protections to which they were entitled is a breach of a fundamental human right. The importance of the right may be identified by reference to the international instruments discussed above at paragraphs 2.5 - 2.12.
8.3 Secondly, it cannot be said in the present case that, had the Appellants had the assistance to which they were entitled, there could have been no change to the outcome of the review. These submissions have not sought to address the matters particularised in paragraph 3 of the Second Further Amended Notices of Appeal. However, the reliance by the RRT on the results of a language analysis undertaken of an interview in Swahili which, it was common ground that the Appellant Odhiambo had learned in Kenya, in order to demonstrate that his origins were Kenyan is potentially a glaring mistake. It is the kind of mistake that might well not have been made had the RRT been able to establish a level of rapport which would have allowed it to communicate with the young person on a basis of trust a circumstance which would have been achieved had it had the benefit of submissions from a guardian who had established that level of understanding and trust.
8.4 Closely analogous problems in other areas of the law have given rise to judicial consideration of the proper limits of police questioning of suspects. For example, the so-called Anunga rules were devised to deal with the difficulties faced by Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory; [131] and see the principles established in Dixon v McCarthy in relation to the police interrogation of young people in detention. [132] Quite similar problems are identified by Ms Le Sueur in her affidavits of 2 March 2002. [133]
9. FURTHER GROUNDS: ODHIAMBO
9.1 The matters identified above constitute the primary concern of the Commission in this appeal. The matters raised are those identified in paragraph 2 in the Further Amended Notices of Appeal. Reference has been made to the use made by the RRT of the linguistic analysis in relation to Swahili, which is separately dealt with in paragraph 3 of the grounds. The Commission is content to leave to the Appellant the further development of ground 3, in its own right. However, the inter-relationship of ground 3 and ground 4 gives rise to a further issue of concern to the Commission.
9.2 Ground 4 in substance alleges that the RRT erred in failing to address the possibility that Kenya might seek to repatriate the Appellant to Sudan, if he were returned to Kenya.
9.3 The legal basis of this ground may be briefly identified. It involves two limbs. First, it is well established that Australia will contravene its protection obligations under the Convention if it returns a person to a safe third country, but there is a real risk that that country will return the person to a country of former habitual residence or nationality, where he or she may suffer persecution. The principle was clearly stated in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Bugdaycay[134] and applied in Nguyen Tuan Cuong v Director of Immigration. [135] The principle was established in Australian law in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Thiyagarajah. [136]
9.4 The second issue is whether the RRT erred in failing to consider this principle, once it was "satisfied" that the Appellant was a national of Kenya.[137] The error in this regard may be put in two ways: first, it is reasonably clear that the RRT did not apply the "real chance" test in relation to this matter. It approached the question of nationality as a matter upon which it had to be 'satisfied', presumably on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, it never asked itself the critical question as to whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Sudan, based on a real chance that he might be returned there by Kenyan authorities. As the Full Court noted in Thiyagarajah, in relation to Bugdaycay: [138]
"A decision to deport Mr Musisi was quashed by the House of Lords only because the Home Secretary had not given proper consideration to whether a danger existed that Kenya would return him to Uganda, a course which would effect indirectly what Article 33 prohibited."
9.5 The matter can be put in a second way, namely that in the circumstances of the case, which was decided on satisfaction as to his nationality alone, the RRT should in law have asked itself "What if I am wrong?". As noted by Sackville J in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingham[139] the "what if I am wrong?" terminology, properly understood, is merely another means of stating the well-founded fear test in the Convention. The relevant principle, summarised by his Honour, after discussing the High Court judgments in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo Wei Rong[140] concluded, relevantly:
"It can be seen from this passage that if the RRT finds that it is only slightly more probably than not that an alleged relevant event has not occurred, it must take into account the chance that it did occur when determining whether there was a well founded fear of persecution. It is clear that the comment in the joint judgment is not confined to a past event (as in Wu Shan Liang) involving persons other than the applicant."
The principle may be said to apply a fortiori in circumstances where it is not a past event, but the very nationality of the applicant himself which is at stake. As his Honour noted, the failure to engage in reasonable speculation in such circumstances will constitute an error of law within s.476(1)(e). [141]
9.6 That the RRT did not engage in reasonable speculation in the present case is clear; the only question is whether it should have done so. For the reasons noted, it should have adopted that course, a conclusion which is strengthened by reference to the principles in relation to the assessment of claims brought by children referred to paragraphs 5.19 - 5.29 above.
10. FURTHER GROUNDS: MARTIZI
10.1 The position adopted by the RRT in relation to Rwanda gives rise to similar issues as that adopted in relation to Mr Odhiambo. However, there are a number of divergences.
10.2 First, the RRT sought to determine the nationality of Mr Martizi, an essential step in applying to him the tests involved in Article 1A(2) of the Convention. The RRT was "unable to be satisfied that Mr Martizi is a national of Rwanda." [142] The RRT further held: [143]
"The evidence has been so contradictory and vague on this issue that I cannot be satisfied that he is a national of Rwanda."
Nor was the RRT satisfied that he was a national of any other country.
10.3 The RRT gave consideration to the possibility that, if he were returned to Rwanda or the Democratic Republic of Congo, he might face Convention based persecution. However, with due respect to the RRT's consideration of the matter [144] it does not constitute the kind of "reasonable speculation" required by the Convention but rather falls within the kind of dismissal of a claim, already considered and dismissed on other grounds, that is little more than an unconsidered dictum. It would not preclude an order in the nature of mandamus to complete and uncompleted inquiry. [145] The consideration given to the country information was, at best, brief: the consideration given to the specific claims made by the Appellant was non-existent. Similarly, there was no attention given to the position of the Appellant as an unaccompanied minor, if returned to Rwanda.
10.4 On one view, the manner in which the RRT dealt with this case might be said to demonstrate in stark terms the importance of ensuring that minors have the assistance of guardians in the presentation of their visa applications. Relevantly for present purposes, and taking into account the principles identified in paragraphs 5.19 - 5.29 above, the RRT failed to give genuine, realistic and proper consideration to the matters relevant to its exercise of power. As noted in the joint judgment in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf: [146]
"If the Tribunal, confronted by claims of past persecution, does not make findings about those claims, the statement of its reasons and findings on material questions of fact may well reveal error. The error in such a case will most likely be either an error of law (being an erroneous understanding of what constitutes a well founded fear of persecution) or a failure to take account of relevant considerations (whether acts of persecution have occurred in the past)."
As their Honours further noted, failure to consider such matters may demonstrate that the decision-maker has failed properly to apply the law, [147] and, if properly so construed, s.476(3) will not stand in the way of relief. [148] Dated: 15 April 2002
1. Statutory Rules 1946, number 195.
2. Statutory Rules 2001, number î the repeal effected by reg.18 lists each of the previous statutory rules creating and amending the Immigration (GOC) Regulations of 1946.
3. The relevant Child Welfare Act is now the Child Welfare Act 1947 (WA) although the 1946 Regulations appear not to have been amended to take account of replacement of the earlier Child Welfare Acts.
4. See Reprint No. 8 at pp.496 and 502.
5.See Schedule 1, item 8(2) at Reprint 8, pp.573-574.
9. Leroux v Brown (1852) 12 C.B. ̡ The Zollverein (1856) Swab. ` The Annapolis (1861) Lush. ħ Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association (1908) 6 CLR ĵ Zachariassen v Commonwealth (1917) 24 CLR 166. See also Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (7th Ed, 1929) at 127.
10. Murray v Charming Betsy (1804) 2 Cranch 64, v also United States v Fisher (1805) 2 Cranch 390.
11. Chu Kheng Lim v Minster for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1 at 38 per Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ.
12. Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 306-07 per Mason CJ and McHugh J; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 75 ALJR 1105 at pars 142-144 (Kirby J), and also Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade v Magno (1992) 112 ALR 529 at 534 per Gummow J.
13. (1995) 183 CLR 273 at 287-8.
14. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 at 287 per Mason CJ and Deane J; also Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337 at 384 per Gummow and Hayne JJ. Generally A Simpson & G Williams, "International Law and Constitutional Interpretation" (2000) 11 Public Law Review 205 at Ð J Spigelman, "Access to Justice and Human Rights Treaties" (2000) 22 Sydney Law Review 141 at 149.
15. Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 319 per Brennan J.
16. The Hon Murray Gleeson AC, Boyer Lectures 2000: The Rule of Law and The Constitution (ABC Books 2000) at The Hon Michael McHugh, "The Law Making Function of the Judicial Process" (1988) 62 Australian Law Journal 15, 116.
17. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 42 per Brennan J (with whom Mason CJ and McHugh J agreed); Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 306-07 per Mason CJ and McHugh J, at 319-321 per Brennan J, at 360 per Toohey J; Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477 at 499 per Mason CJ and Toohey J; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 at 288-289 per Mason CJ and Deane J.
18. Ballina Shire Council v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680 at 687-88 per Gleeson CJ, at 699, 709-710 per Kirby P.
19. Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 321 per Brennan J.
20. Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 at 289 per Mason CJ and Deane J. See also Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade v Magno (1992) 37 FCR 298 at 343 and Tavita v Minister for Immigration (1994) 2 NZLR 257 at 266.
21. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 30 per Brennan J (with whom Mason CJ and McHugh J agreed).
22. Article 3(1): In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
23. Article 12(1): States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Article 12(2): For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to he heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
24. Article 20(1): A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State. Article 22(1): State Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention and in other international human rights or humanitarian instruments to which the said States are parties.
25. Article 37(d): Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.
27. Along with articles 2, 6 and 12 of the CROC: see General Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Periodic Reports to be Submitted by States Partes under Article 44, paragraph 1(B), of the Convention, adopted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child at its 343rd meeting (thirteenth session) on 11 October 1996.
28. Principle 2: The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunity and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a health and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
29. Article 3 makes it clear that the best interests of the child need only be a rather than the primary consideration: G Van Bueren, The International Law on the Rights of the Child, 1995, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, London, at page . Minister of State of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh, (1995) 183 CLR 273 per Mason CJ and Deane J at 289.
31. In particular, see the decisions of Mason CJ and Deane J at page 289.
32. General Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Periodic Reports to be Submitted by States Partes under Article 44, paragraph 1(B), of the Convention, adopted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child at its 343rd meeting (thirteenth session) on 11 October 1996.
33. Article 43 of the CROC establishes a Committee on the Rights of the Child to examine the progress made by States Parties in achieving the realization of the obligations undertaken in the CROC. This Committee is made up of "ten experts of high moral standing and recognized competence" in the field covered by the Convention.
34. R Hodgkin and P Newell, Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1998, Atar SA, Geneva, at 145.
35. An "unaccompanied child" is a person who is under the age of eighteen who is separated from both parents and is not being cared for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility to do so: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum, February 1997, paragraph 3.1.
36. See also article 3(2) of the CROC which provides: State parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.
37. For example see Conclusions on the International Protection of Refugees, adopted by the UNHCR Executive Committee, No 47 (XXXVIII), "Refugee Children", 1987 where the Executive Committee highlighted the special vulnerability of unaccompanied children and children separated from their parents. On 26 June 1997, the Council of the European Union passed a Resolution on "Unaccompanied Minors who are Nationals of Third Countries", Official Journal C 221, 19 July.1997, at 23-27. See also the UNHCR and the International Save the Children Alliance in Europe, Separated Children in Europe Program, "Statement of Good Practice", October 2000. In addition, many countries have adopted special procedures and rules of evidence when determining the applications of unaccompanied children seeking refugee status. In Canada, Guidelines entitled "Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues" have been issued by the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board pursuant to s.65(3) of the Immigration Act, as enacted by the RSC, 1985 (4th Supp), c 28. In the United States of America, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has issued "Guidelines for Children's Asylum Claims". Since 1 October 1994, the United Kingdom has special rules in relation to child asylum seekers: see Immigration Rule on Child Asylum Seekers (HC 395) and has developed guidelines to assist in the application of this Rule: Chapter 2, Section 5 of the Guidelines on Asylum Applications. The New Zealand Immigration Service also has a special section in their Refugee Policy on "Claims for Refugee Status by Minors".
38. Paragraph 5.7 of the UNHCR 1997 Guidelines. See also article 3(4) and (5) of the Council of the European Union, Resolution of 26 June 1997 on "Unaccompanied Minors who are Nationals of Third Countries".
39. The UNHCR's "Policy on Refugee Children" issued in 1993 points out "that governmental action relating to children must be tailored to the different needs and potentials of refugee children". The UNHCR's 1997 Guidelines emphasise that this principle should apply to all children, including those between sixteen and eighteen, even where application for refugee status is processed under the normal procedures for adults: paragraph 8.3.
40. UNHCR's 1994 Guidelines; paragraph 8.1 and 8.5 of the UNHCR's 1997 Guidelines. The 1994 Guidelines emphasise that "[k]eeping children in limbo regarding their status, hence their security and future, can be harmful to them". See also article 4(2) of the Council of the European Union, Resolution of 26 June 1997 on "Unaccompanied Minors who are Nationals of Third Countries".
41. The UNHCR's 1994 Guidelines; paragraph 8.3 of the UNHCR's 1997 Guidelines.
42. The UNHCR's 1994 Guidelines provide that: "a legal representative should be appointed immediately to ensure that the interests of an applicant for refuge status who is a minor are fully safeguarded"; paragraphs 4.2 and 8.3 of the UNHCR's 1997 Guidelines. See also article 3(5) of the Council of the European Union, Resolution of 26 June 1997 on "Unaccompanied Minors who are Nationals of Third Countries". The Committee on the Rights of the Child has advised, in relation to the Initial Report Concluding Observations for Panama, that article 3 of the CROC will be satisfied where "[p]rocedures [are] developed in cooperation with UNHCR in order to appoint legal representatives for unaccompanied children ": CRC/C/15/Add.68, at paragraph 34.
43. The UNHCR's 1994 Guidelines which provide that: "[u]ncertainty leads to unnecessary anxiety, and if not accurately informed, a minor will be all the more receptive to rumours and bad advice, and may form unrealistic expectations and as a consequence, be more likely to falsify information".
44. A "non-citizen child" is defined in s.4AA(1) of the Immigration (GOC) Act as child who has not turned 18, enters Australia as a non-citizen and intends, or is intended, to become a permanent resident of Australia.
45. X v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 524 and X v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 704 (29 May 2000).
46. X v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 704 (29 May 2000), at par 13.
47. X v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 524 at par 43.
48. Ibid. Article 18(1) of the CROC provides that: State parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interest of the child will be their basic concern.
49. Pursuant to s.6 of the Immigration (GOC) Act and s.39(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth): X v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, (1999) 92 FCR 524, at par O Jaffari v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 985 (26 July 2001), at par 16.
50. (1976) 28 FLR 427 (Blackburn J).
51. (1995) 36 NSWLR 477 (Brownie J).
54. (1992) 176 CLR 408 at 411 per Mason CJ, Deane and Toohey JJ. See also Johnson v Department of Community Services [1999] NSWSC 1156 (2 December 1999).
55. See Lowe and White, Wards of Court, Butterworth's, 1979, p.206-209.
56. See Family Law Act, s.65A.
57. See Schedule 2 to that Act.
58 One of the significant changes brought about the Family Law Act and the 1995 reforms was to replace the language of "rights" in relation to children with reference to "responsibilities".
59.The list in the Schedule to the delegation contains 58 positions but one, identified in relation to Victoria as "Managers, Youth and Family Services", may cover a number of individuals.
61. See Child Welfare Act 1947 (WA) in relation to a "child in need of care and protection" - see ss.4, 29 and 30. Such children are defined as "wards" (s.4(2)) and their "care, management and control" is vested in the Director-General: s.10(1).
62. See now reg.7 of the 2001 Regulations.
63. That provision may be valid, if it constitutes a prescribed exception for the purposes of s.8 of the Immigration (GOC) Act.
64. This matter is raised by paragraph 2(b)(ii) of the Second Further Amended Notices of Appeal.
65. Constitution, s.51(xxvii); see also placitum (xxxix).
66. The Queen v Director-General of Social Welfare (Victoria); Ex parte Henry (1975) 133 CLR 369.
67. See Re Cram; Ex parte NSW Colliery Proprietors' Association Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 117 at 128.3, and see Printz v United States 521 U.S. 898, 904-922 (1997).
68. Melbourne Corporation v The Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31, 60.8 (Latham CJ).
70. (1983) 158 CLR 1 at 215-216: see also Queensland Electricity Commission v The Commonwealth (1985) 159 CLR 192 at 213 (Mason J) and Re Australian Education Union; Ex parte Victoria (1994-95) 184 CLR 188 at 226-227 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).
71. X v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 524 at par > UNHCR Executive Committee, No 47 (XXXVIII), "Refugee Children", 1987.
72. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Report on the Seventh Session, November 1994, CRC/C/34, at 61.
73. The UNHCR's 1997 Guidelines, paragraph 1.3.
74. Paragraph 4.2 of these submissions.
75. See Affidavits of Ms Kannis sworn on 1 March 2002, par 35.
76. See Affidavits of Ms Kannis sworn on 1 March 2002, par 36.
77. See the transcript of his RRT hearing attached to the Affidavit of Ms Natalie Sheard affirmed on 12 April 2002.
78. See the transcript of his RRT hearing attached to the Affidavit of Ms Natalie Sheard affirmed on 12 April 2002.
79. Affidavit of Peter Martizi sworn on 4 March 2002, par Affidavit of Simon Odhiambo sworn on 4 March 2002, par 13.
80. Affidavit of Peter Martizi sworn on 4 March 2002, par Affidavit of Simon Odhiambo sworn on 4 March 2002, par 17.
81. See Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, sub-class 030 - Bridging C.
82. Regulations, Schedule 2, clause 051.211.
83. See X v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 524 at par 13 (North J).
84. Affidavits of Ms Kannis sworn on 1 March 2002, par 4.
86. Affidavits of Ms Kannis sworn on 1 March 2002, pars 5 - 9.
90. See Affidavit of Simon Odhiambo sworn on 4 March 2002.
91. Affidavit of Peter Martizi sworn on 4 March 2002, par 5.
95. Carltona Ltd v Commissioner of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560.
96. See Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1985-86) 162 CLR 25 at 38.1.
97. See also Ozmanian v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 137 ALR 103 at 121 (Merkel J) dealing with the power of the Minister under s.417 of the Migration Act. See also Norvill v Chapman (1995) 133 ALR 226 in relation to a power conferred on the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for the preservation of Aboriginal heritage sites and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs v Western Australia (1996) 149 ALR 78, 98-100 (Black CJ).
98. See X v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 524 at par 13 (North J).
102. (1992) 176 CLR 408 at 411.
103. X v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 524 at par 62.
105. See particularly pars 27-31.
106. The UNHCR's 1997 Guidelines, paragraph 8.6.
108. Judgment of Blais J, 18 June 1999, Docket No. IMM-2949-98.
109. The primary decision maker on applications for refugee status.
110. CRDD Panel in V92-00501, Burdett, Brisco, April, 1993.
111. The UNHCR's Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, 1979 states that: After the applicant has made a genuine effort to substantiate his story there may still be a lack of evidence for some of his statements. As explained above it is hardly possible for a refugee to 'prove' every part of his case, and indeed, if this were a requirement the majority of refugees would not be recognized. It is therefore frequently necessary to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statement must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.
112. (1994) 124 ALR 265 at par 2. See also Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 544- ȡ In administrative decision making, the concept of burden of proof is generally inappropriate: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 282-ě Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 at pars 143-146.
121. Affidavits of Ms Kannis sworn on 1 March 2002, par 5.
122. Affidavit of Simon Odhiambo sworn on 4 March 2002, par Affidavit of Al-Siddiq Abdullah Adam Mohammad sworn on 2 March 2002, pars 3 and 4.
123. Affidavit of Simon Odhiambo sworn on 4 March 2002, par Affidavit of Al-Siddiq Abdullah Adam Mohammad sworn on 2 March 2002, par 3.
124. Affidavit of Simon Odhiambo sworn on 4 March 2002, par 17.
126. Judgment par 11 at AB 181.
128. In the case of Simon Odhiambo, the Tribunal noted his claim at AB 124, par 15 to be a 16 year old; he does not make any express finding accepting or rejecting the claims in that regard. Similarly, the Tribunal noted that Mr Martizi claimed to be "an unaccompanied minor" (AB 155.2) without making any finding in the regard.
130. (2001) 75 ALJR 1105 at par 84.
131. See also Gleeson CJ at par 1 (agreeing with the joint judgment) and at par see also Gaudron J at pars 36-& Kirby J and Callinan J not addressing the issue.
132. See R v Anunga; R v Wheeler (1976) 11 ALR 412 (Foster J); see Also R v Williams (1976) 14 SASR 1 (Wells J).
133. (1975) 1 NSWLR 617 at 635: provision was promptly made by legislation in that jurisdiction - see Child Welfare (Amendment) Act 1977 and Child Welfare (Further Amendment) Act 1977 (NSW) introducing s.81C into the Child Welfare Act.
137. (1998) 80 FCR 543 at 558 ff (von Doussa J, Moore and Sackville JJ agreeing).
140. (1999) 93 FCR 220 at par 63.
141. (1997) 191 CLR 559, at 93 FCR pars 51-55.
144. AB 174.8. In a single paragraph at AB 175-176.
145. See Wade v Burns (1966) 115 CLR 537 at 555.7 (Barwick CJ) and 562-563 (Menzies J, Taylor J agreeing).
146. (2001) 75 ALJR 1105 at par 75 (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
Last updated 26 April 2002.