Assignment on Al-Kateb v Godwin

AL KATEB V GODWIN

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 3
MAIN BODY................................................................................................................. 3
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................. 6
REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 7

INTRODUCTION
The below report explores the case of Al-kateb v Godwin. It explains both the judgement
and the indefinite detention that was made on the case (Stone, 2019). The report makes use of a
variety of views in order to determine the righteousness of the case and to identifies the
importance of the made decision.
MAIN BODY
Judgement
The final judgement in the Al-Kateb’s case was made by three judges with respect to the
migration act, it permits indefinite detention. All the three judges deliver a distinct judgement
with just justices Hayne, McHugh, Heydon and Callinan forming the majority. In addition to
this, Justice Heydon was said to be agreed entirely with Justice Hayne & offered not any of the
other perceptive. Justices Gummow, Chief Justice Gleeson and Kirby disagreed by mentioning
about Migration Act does not need to be understood in the permission of unspecified detention
(Kagan, 2016). The detention of unlawful aliens is a problem that has observed major conflicting
issues from the Australian people and media. In the case of Al-Kateb v Goodwin became big
issue to the legality of the administrative detention by Commonwealth under the prevision of
Migration Act. In this particular case the High court of Australia tried to examine whether the
stateless individual, with no foreseeable chance of removal may be held indefinitely in the
detention.
Indefinite detention
According to McHugh the sections' language was not vague and needed the indefinite
imprisonment of Al-Kateb. It has been stated individual needs to be early as judiciously feasible
and was focused on limiting the period of imprisonment as much as required. On the other hand,
it does not mean that the detention is bound to a large duration expiring when became
impracticable to deport or remove individual. In dissent, Chief Justice Gleeson stated that in the
law of interpretation that, the courts are not going to ascribe to legislature a purpose to curtail or
abrogate several human rights as well as freedoms until and unless the intention is being
evidently manifested in clear language. He also stated that provisions defining that unlawful non-