[Case summary #2] A brief of 'the Tampa Case', the prevention of non-citizens from entering Australia under s61 of Constitution

---

The Tampa Case

---

1. Case Citation: Ruddock and Others v Vadarlis and Others [2001] FCA 1392; 110 FCR 491

2. Jurisdiction: Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

3. The Parties in this case: Ruddock and Others, Vadarlis and Others

* Solicitors for

1) the appellants: Australian Government Solicitor.

2) Mr Vadarlis: Riordan & Partners.

3) Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Inc: Holding Redlich

4. Amnesty International Ltd: Slater & Gordon 

4. Factual information

A Norwegian container ship, the MV Tampa, rescued 433 people from a wooden fishing boat sinking in the Indian Ocean about 140 km north of Christmas Island which is an Australian territory. Although the vessel in the beginning heads to Indonesia, some of the rescuees who did not want to go to Indonesia but Australia (Christmas Island) threthened suicide to make the vessel to head towards the Island. 

Departmental officers of Australia formally requested the Captain of the vessel not to enter Australian territorial waters. After the vessel, however, enered into Australian Australian territorial waters due to urgent medical situation, 45 Australian troops boarded the vessel. The Norwegian Ambassador went onto the vessel in the next day receieved a letter signed by "Afghan Refugees Now off the coast of Christmas Island", requesting permission to enter Australia, and not to be deprived of "rights of refugess according to International Convention (1951)"

Following unsuccessful attempts to communicate with the rescuees, and on the first day of proceedings, the Australian Government had arranged for the resecuees to be transferred to New Zealand and Nauru for initial processing and determination as to whether they were entitled to protection as refugees.

After the primary judge held the rescuees were detained aboard the vessel without lawful authority by Australian government and made orders for the release of them on to the Australian mainland. The Government respondents appealed.

---

4. Catchwords & Areas of Law:

1) Constitutional Law (Commonwealth - Executive power-Whether includes prerogative to prevent non-citisens from entering Australia - Whether prerogative displaced by statute - Constitution of the Commonwealth, s 61 - Migration Act 1958 (Cth))

2) Administration Law (Habeas corpus - Prevention of non-citizens from entering Australia - Whether restraint on liberty)

3) Immigration Law (Non-citizens - Detention and removal of Statutory powers - Whether displace Executive's power to exclude non-citizens from Australia - Migration Act 1958 (Cth), Pt2, Divs 7, 8, 9, 12A)

5. the Key issue for this case summary 

The nature of the executive power of government, the source of this power as to whether the Executive power of the Commonwealth authorised and supported the expulsion of the rescuers and their detention for that purpose.

6. Ratio & Decision

The prerogative power is included in section 61 of the Constitution of Australia, the power is vested to the Crown and the Governor-General of Australia as the Crown's representative; there is a prerogative power to expel or exclude non-citizens from Australia.

---

---

Justice French's Judgment

---

 

1. Pinpoint Reference by categories

522 [127] - [130] Introduction
522 [131] - [147] Factual information
527 [148] - [149] The primary judge's orders 
528 [150] - [158] The trial judge's decision
532 [159] The grounds of appeal 
533 [160] - [161] Cross-appeal
533 [162] Issues on the appeal 
533 [163] - [175] Statutory framework 
537 [176] - [180] The Executive power of the Commonwealth - source and general character
539 [181] - [185] The Executive power of the Commonwealth - subject to parliamentary control
541 [186] - [198] The Executive power - the gatekeeping function
544 [199] - [205] Whether the Executive power to exclude aliens is abrogated by the Migration Act
546 [206] - [215] Whether the rescuers were subject to a restraint attributable to the Commonwealth and amenable to habeas corpus.
548 [216] Postscript

2. Ratio

[183] The Executive power of the Commonwealth under s 61 cannot be treated as a species of the royal prerogative, while the Executive power may derive some of its content by reference to the royal prerogative, it is a power conferred as part of a negotiated federal compact expressed in a written Constitution distributing powers between the three arms of govenrment refelcted in Chs I, II and III of the Constitution and, as to legislative powers, between the polities that comprise the federation. The power is subject, not only to the limitation as to subject matter that flow directly from the Constitution but also to thelaws of the Commonwealth made under it. 

[185] The Executive power of the Commonwealth covers a wide range of matters, some of greater importance than others. Some are intimately connected to Australia's status as an independent, sovereign nation State. The relevance of the importance of the particular power to the question whether it has been displaced by a statute, appears to have been accepted by Jacobs J in Barton. The greater the significance of a particular Executive power to national sovereignty, the less likely it is that, absent clear words or inescapable implication, the parliament would have intended to extinguish the power. 

 

3. Postscript

[216] The counsel and solicitors acting in the interests of the rescuers in this case have evidently done so pro bono. They have acted according to the highest ideals of the law. They have sought to give voices to those who are perforce voiceless and, on their behalf, to hold the Executive accountable for the lawfulness of its actions. In so doing, even if ultimately unsuccessful in the litigation they have served the rule of law and so the whole community. Orders accordingly.