• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Background facts 4 Mr Vo arrived in Australia under the Indo Chinese Refugee Program on 26 May 1983 when he was sixteen years of age. He attended school in Sydney for less than a year. Since then he has spent much of his time in prison. In fact, from 21 September 1987 until 27 December 1993 he had spent only 16 months in the community. The crimes for which he has been convicted, include armed robbery, wounding, receiving and stealing motor vehicles. On 30 June 1994 he was sentenced to periods of imprisonment, including 4 years penal servitude commencing on 27 December 1993 and expiring on 26 December 1997 for armed robbery. A deportation order was made against him on 20 August 1997 and he has been held in immigration detention since completed his criminal detention. 5 The Minute of the decision of the relevant officer made on 21 July 1999 is in these terms: "REVIEW OF PLACE OF DETENTION - Kiet Tuan VO - Criminal Deportee Mr Vo has been held in immigration detention pursuant to Section 253 of the Migration Act 1958 since 18 June 1998 when he completed a sentence of criminal detention. On 29 May 1998 it was decided that he was unsuitable for the Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) and that he remain in the gaol system (folios 17-20). On 5 June 1998 the Federal Court affirmed the AAT's decision to affirm the deportation order. The decision record is held at folios 22-28. On 28 August 1998 Mr Vo made an application for release to the Federal Court. This application was later dismissed on 9 December 1998. Mr Vo's place of detention was last reviewed on 16 June 1999 where you agreed with the recommendation that his current custody arrangements be maintained (folio 58). On 16 July 1999 the Department received correspondence from Mr Vo requesting release from immigration detention (folios 74 & 73). In light of this request Mr Vo's immigration detention needs to be reviewed by you at this time. Throughout his immigration detention Mr Vo has been visited by departmental officers on a regular basis. He is currently held at the MRRC, Silverwater. Mr Vo has lodged a complaint with the United Nations regarding his deportation and detention. Mr Vo's files have been referred to the Character Section in respect of this complaint. Arrangements are currently being made for the issue of a travel document in order to effect Mr Vo's deportation. Taking into account the previous detention submission addressing the question of Mr Vo's custody and decision regarding his unsuitability for transfer to the IDC, it is submitted that Mr Vo's current custody arrangements should be maintained. [Signature] Marielle Scavera Criminal Deportations Section, Bankstown 20 July 1999 Recommendation approved/ not approved [Signature] James McCormack Regional Manager, Bankstown 21/7/99" 6 Essentially, the submissions of the applicant are that the decision of the immigration officer was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have reached it and that the decision-maker failed to take into account a relevant consideration. The failure to take into account was also submitted as part of the unreasonableness ground. The relevant consideration was said to be the fact that the applicant had been detained pending Australian governmental negotiations to return him to Vietnam for an "extraordinarily long period" and that the applicant could be detained indefinitely pending the outcome of such negotiations. 7 The applicant pointed to various documents by way of factual background, being documents from both the Vietnamese and Australian Governments, identifying "the problem of returning refugees". In particular, the applicant drew attention to a Vietnamese Government document identifying categories of people who can be returned, and said that those categories would not include the applicant in this case. 8 On the hearing before me evidence was led from a Senior Officer of the Department, Mr Job, who testified as to discussions relating to the return of the applicant. These were said to have been taken up on a direct level between the Australian Ambassador and the Vice-Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Public Security of Vietnam. The officer said that his expectation was that travel documents would be issued to facilitate the repatriation of the applicant to Vietnam within a couple of months. He also gave evidence of the previous release of a Vietnamese detainee awaiting deportation who had subsequently absconded and could not be located. 9 In support of its contentions the applicant referred to the recent decision of Madgwick J in Perez v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1342. In the reasons for decision in that case his Honour made the following observations (at par 12): "If it were plain that there was no prospect of effecting the deportation within a reasonable period, there might be no justification for the making of the order and the conclusion might be invited that the power to make the order was being exercised with some extraneous and therefore legally improper purpose. Further, upon its later becoming apparent, after the regular making of an order, that events revealed a practical impossibility in actually effecting the deportation, questions of the Minister then having a legal duty to revoke the order might arise." (Emphasis added) 10 In the present case it is not suggested that there is any available inference of extraneous purpose. Nor can it be said, on the evidence, that at the time the decision was made there was no prospect of effecting the deportation within a reasonable period. 11 The applicant made an earlier application to this Court for release from detention under s 253 of the Migration Act and this was heard on 4 December 1998 by Lindgren J. The application was rejected by his Honour: see Vo v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1632. In his reasons for decision his Honour observed (at p 11): "I accept readily the cogency of the argument that if Mr Vo were to be released, he would be unlikely to present himself for deportation. On the other hand, there may come a time when, and there may be circumstances in which, it would not be a sustainable exercise of discretion to keep Mr Vo in detention any longer." 12 In the present case, the period of immigration detention at the time when the matter was considered by the Departmental officer was in the order of thirteen months. The fact of his detention was referred to in the Minute of the decision-maker. Also referred to in the decision was the completion of the criminal detention and the decision of the Federal Court on 5 June 1998 to affirm the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that the applicant should be deported. The avenues of setting aside the deportation order have now been exhausted. The Minute also refers to the unsuccessful application for release made to Lindgren J. In addition, the Minute refers to the reconsideration of the place of detention of Mr Vo and to the decision that the then current custody arrangements should be maintained. The Minute also refers to the fact that arrangements were being made for the issue of a travel document by the Vietnamese Government in order to enable the deportation to be carried out. In the final paragraph of the Minute, the decision-maker indicates that the previous detention submission was taken into account, as was the decision relating to his unsuitability for transfer to the Immigration Detention Centre. 13 On a fair reading of the Minute I am satisfied that the decision-maker took into account the length of detention. It is also apparent that the decision-maker recognised that arrangements would need to be finalised for the issue of a travel document before Mr Vo could be deported. 14 In examining this matter it is important to keep in mind that the discretionary power to release from detention is conferred in broad terms and is given to the Minister or Secretary of the Department. There are no circumstances imposed by way of limitation on the exercise of that discretion. The weight to be assigned to any relevant consideration is a matter within the province of the decision-maker and is not for this Court to determine. On its face the decision to refuse release is not grossly unreasonable on the Wednesbury sense when account is taken of the serious nature, continuity and extent of the applicant's criminal record. The incentive for the applicant to flee from deportation is both obvious and strong. No satisfactory conditions were advanced or suggested as to how flight from the authorities might be avoided. In these circumstances it cannot be said to be outside the reasonable exercise of discretion to determine that the applicant should remain in detention. 15 The subsequent evidence presented to me at the hearing without objection, concerning the ongoing negotiations with the Vietnamese Government, makes it clear that the negotiations for issue of the travel documents to enable the deportation to be implemented will probably be finalised within the next few months. This fact, together with the obligation of Vietnam to accept the return of its citizens under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (Article 12) to which Vietnam is a signatory, lends support to the reasonableness of the decision because it indicates the basis on which the negotiations referred to in the decision are currently being pressed by Australia, and supports the conclusion that the likely outcome will be the deportation of the applicant within the next few months as a result of the strenuous efforts and determined policy of the Australian Government to have the applicant deported. 16 What has happened since 21 July is that the anticipated negotiations have been lengthier than originally anticipated. However, the present indication according to the evidence is that a decision is expected to be reached by the Vietnamese authorities by mid-February 2000, which will enable the deportation to be implemented. The evidence before me indicates that a question of deportation to Vietnam has been taken up between Australia and Vietnam at a high government level and that the Australian Government is pressing strongly for the deportation to be carried out. 17 On the material which was before the decision-maker I am not persuaded that any reviewable error has been made out. The subsequent material advanced to the Court without objection affirms that the Australian Government is committed to ensuring the deportation as soon as possible. 18 Accordingly, this application for review under the ADJR Act and s 39B of the Judiciary Act is dismissed with costs.