19 Sept 2025
The detention is lawful because the Director acted with diligence to secure removal, the only effective impediment is the applicant's deliberate refusal to cooperate in obtaining a travel document, and the 347-day period is reasonable when weighed against significant risks of absconding and reoffending and the applicant-caused delay.
27 Aug 2025
The detention of the applicant for 224 days was lawful and reasonable: the Director intended to deport and acted with reasonable diligence to obtain travel documentation and effect removal; delays were directly or indirectly caused by the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with re-entry/travel-document formalities and such detainee-caused periods are not to be treated as rendering detention unreasonable; ongoing appellate or non-refoulement proceedings did not constitute a legal impediment to removal under prevailing policy; therefore habeas corpus application dismissed.
19 Aug 2025
Detention was lawful and reasonable: a valid deportation order existed, the Secretary/Director intend and have acted with reasonable diligence to effect removal, the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate in obtaining travel documents and his serious criminal history with demonstrated absconding risk mean the period of detention (88 days) is not unreasonable under the Hardial Singh principles and s.32(4A) IO, therefore habeas corpus relief is refused.
7 Aug 2025
Application dismissed because detention under a valid removal order was for the purpose of removal, the Director acted with reasonable diligence and expedition, the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with re-entry formalities directly prolonged detention, and there was a real and substantial risk of absconding given past failures to report recognizance; accordingly the 443‑day detention remained reasonable under s.32(4A) and Hardial Singh principles.
6 Aug 2025
The court dismissed the habeas corpus application and held detention lawful: the Director intended deportation and acted with reasonable diligence to obtain a travel document, the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate caused the delay in removal and therefore the detention period remained reasonable under s.32(4A) and applicable case law, and the real risk of absconding justified continued detention; medical and safety complaints did not outweigh these factors.
10 Dec 2024
The judicial review is dismissed: the removal orders were lawfully made and remain valid; the Hardial Singh principle concerns the lawfulness of exercising detention rather than the continued existence of removal orders or recognizance, and because the Applicants are not detained the challenge fails; the existence of removal orders does not bar applications for permission to enter and remain and there is no unlawful fettering of discretion by the Director under the facts.
2 Aug 2024
Detention that was originally lawful became unreasonable and therefore unlawful because a foreseeable legal impediment (pending TCAB decision and subsequent judicial review plus departmental policy not to remove until JR determined) made removal unlikely within a reasonable period (HS2 and HS3 unmet) despite Director's diligence; habeas corpus granted and Applicant released on recognizance with conditions.
13 Mar 2024
The detention, lawful at inception under s32(3), had continued for about 302 days and, after balancing delays attributable to the applicant against the Director's efforts and relevant risks, the court was not satisfied the continued detention would result in removal within a reasonable time; HS2 and HS3 (Hardial Singh) were not met and continued detention was unlawful, entitling applicant to release on recognizance.
8 Nov 2023
Detention under s.32(3A) remained lawful because there was no legal impediment to removal, the Director acted with diligence, the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate delayed issuance of travel documentation, and there was an objectively substantial risk of absconding given past failures to comply; habeas corpus will not re-open the merits of the non‑refoulement claim.
26 Oct 2023
Detention remained lawful because a valid removal order existed, detention was authorised by s32(3A), the Director consistently intended deportation and acted with reasonable diligence, the delay was attributable to the applicant's refusal to cooperate, and removal was imminent; accordingly the detention was not rendered unreasonable under the Hardial Singh criteria.