Schlieske, J.I. v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 393

Schlieske, J.I. v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 393

There are no serious questions to be tried concerning the applicant's attack on the deportation order, its execution, or directions for detention pending deportation. Procedural fairness was afforded, delay in execution does not invalidate the deportation order, and objections to destination or use of s.39 directions do not amount to reviewable decision or breach. The application is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Jens Ingo Schlieske; First Respondent: The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Second Respondent: John Reginald Tuchin; Third Respondent: Ross William Robilliard
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 1987
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief and Judicial Review / Interlocutory Hearing, Reasons for Judgment on Dismissal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Deportation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Delay in Execution of Deportation Order, Destination of Deportation
Migration Law Administrative Law Deportation Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Delay in Execution of Deportation Order Destination of Deportation

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jens Ingo Schlieske

Applicant

The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

First Respondent

John Reginald Tuchin

Second Respondent

Ross William Robilliard

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief and Judicial Review / Interlocutory Hearing, Reasons for Judgment on Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness in the making of the deportation order
  2. 2 Whether delay in execution of deportation order affects its validity
  3. 3 Whether the deportation order can be challenged on grounds related to destination and voluntary departure

Ratio Decidendi

There are no serious questions to be tried concerning the applicant's attack on the deportation order, its execution, or directions for detention pending deportation. Procedural fairness was afforded, delay in execution does not invalidate the deportation order, and objections to destination or use of s.39 directions do not amount to reviewable decision or breach. The application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interlocutory relief dismissed
  • Respondents do not seek costs