Dang v Minister Affairs & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 726

Dang v Minister Affairs & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 726

The appeal failed because the 24 February 1998 letter constituted a valid notice under s 254(2), and s 254(3), together with s 253(2), authorised the appellant to be kept in immigration detention from the custody transfer time. The primary judge was correct to prefer Tuiletufuga and Meng Kok Te to Halmi, to find that the decision was made under s 254 and the relevant parts of s 253 made applicable by s 254(3), and to conclude that the letter conveyed the statutory requirements despite not using the exact word "kept" and despite references to transfer, timing and likely place of detention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Migration Law Deportation / Appeal From Kenny J's Dismissal of an Application for a Declaration That the Appellant Had Not Been Lawfully Detained in Immigration Detention Under S 253 or S 254 of the Migration Act 1958
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['deportation of Non Citizen Convicted of Criminal Offence' 'immigration Detention' 'transfer Notice Under S 254(2) of the Migration Act 1958' 'relationship Between Ss 253 and 254 of the Migration Act 1958' 'validity of Notice Requirements']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['deportation of Non Citizen Convicted of Criminal Offence' 'immigration Detention' 'transfer Notice Under S 254(2) of the Migration Act 1958' 'relationship Between Ss 253 and 254 of the Migration Act 1958' 'validity of Notice Requirements']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Law Deportation / Appeal From Kenny J's Dismissal of an Application for a Declaration That the Appellant Had Not Been Lawfully Detained in Immigration Detention Under S 253 or S 254 of the Migration Act 1958

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 254(3), in conjunction with s 253(2) of the Migration Act 1958, provided power to keep in detention a deportee to whom a notice under s 254(2) had been given.' 'Whether the appellant was detained pursuant to s 254 rather than s 253.' 'Whether the letter dated 24 February 1998 met the requirements of s 254(2) of the Migration Act 1958.' "Whether the primary judge's costs order should be disturbed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the 24 February 1998 letter constituted a valid notice under s 254(2), and s 254(3), together with s 253(2), authorised the appellant to be kept in immigration detention from the custody transfer time. The primary judge was correct to prefer Tuiletufuga and Meng Kok Te to Halmi, to find that the decision was made under s 254 and the relevant parts of s 253 made applicable by s 254(3), and to conclude that the letter conveyed the statutory requirements despite not using the exact word "kept" and despite references to transfer, timing and likely place of detention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal should be dismissed with costs.']