SHMB v Goodwin (No 3) [2003] FCA 1444

SHMB v Goodwin (No 3) [2003] FCA 1444

The respondents' further evidence did not advance the position beyond that assessed when the interlocutory order was made. There remained a serious question to be tried that a Palestinian passport application supported only by an Australian Embassy officer with a limited power of attorney might not result in a passport, including because existing legal and policy requirements at Hebron might require support by a close relative. The transit issue through Israel was not itself a sufficient reason to find a serious question about removal once a passport issued, but the continuing serious question about the passport process meant the application to discharge the interlocutory injunction...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) for a Declaration That the Applicant Is Being Unlawfully Detained and for Mandamus Directing Release From Immigration Detention / Respondents' Interlocutory Application to Discharge the Interlocutory Injunction Made on 3 October 2003
Outcome
Respondents' application to discharge the interlocutory injunction refused.
Legal Topics
['immigration Detention' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'removal From Australia' 'stateless Person' 'palestinian Passport']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['immigration Detention' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'removal From Australia' 'stateless Person' 'palestinian Passport']

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

Application Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) for a Declaration That the Applicant Is Being Unlawfully Detained and for Mandamus Directing Release From Immigration Detention / Respondents' Interlocutory Application to Discharge the Interlocutory Injunction Made on 3 October 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the interlocutory injunction requiring the applicant's release from immigration detention should be discharged." 'Whether there remained a serious question to be tried that there was no real likelihood or prospect of the applicant being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future.' 'Whether the evidence about obtaining a Palestinian passport and transit through Israel removed the serious question to be tried.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' further evidence did not advance the position beyond that assessed when the interlocutory order was made. There remained a serious question to be tried that a Palestinian passport application supported only by an Australian Embassy officer with a limited power of attorney might not result in a passport, including because existing legal and policy requirements at Hebron might require support by a close relative. The transit issue through Israel was not itself a sufficient reason to find a serious question about removal once a passport issued, but the continuing serious question about the passport process meant the application to discharge the interlocutory injunction...

Court Disposition

Respondents' application to discharge the interlocutory injunction refused.

Orders

  • ['The application by the respondents to discharge the interlocutory injunction made on 3 October 2003 be refused.']