Australia’s High Court recently ruled against laws that required migrants to wear electronic tracking devices and adhere to curfews, marking a significant legal setback for the government. The court’s decision, made by five out of seven judges, found that such measures were unconstitutional. The ruling highlighted that punishment should only be imposed by judges, not lawmakers and that the government’s approach to controlling migrants violated this principle.
The government had initially defended the measures, arguing that electronic monitoring and curfews were necessary to ensure public safety. These laws were passed hastily in December following a previous High Court ruling that non-citizens could not be held indefinitely as an alternative to deportation. The aim was to find a way to monitor individuals who could not be deported but were deemed a potential risk to society. However, the court’s latest judgment has struck down the legal basis for these measures, which directly affected over 200 migrants, most of whom had criminal records.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke responded to the ruling by stating that the government would present new legislation to Parliament, aiming to find a revised solution to electronic monitoring and curfews. Although Burke acknowledged the ruling was disappointing, he emphasized that the government would continue prioritizing public safety in its approach to immigration. The government is expected to work on a new framework to balance security concerns with the rights of migrants.
The case that led to the High Court decision was initiated by YBFZ, a 36-year-old stateless man from Eritrea. YBFZ had arrived in Australia in 2002 as a refugee, fleeing persecution with his family. His refugee visa was revoked in 2017 after he was convicted of various crimes, including burglary and causing injury. Although he could not be deported, YBFZ had been subjected to electronic monitoring and curfews until the High Court ruled in 2023 that indefinite detention was unconstitutional. His case challenged the new laws, leading to the High Court’s final decision.
David Manne, the lawyer representing YBFZ, celebrated the court’s ruling, calling it a major victory for fundamental rights. He argued that the decision reinforced the principle that no government should have the power to strip individuals of their basic rights to freedom and dignity, regardless of their citizenship status. Manne’s statement echoed the broader message that the ruling upheld individual rights over government power in immigration matters.
While human rights advocates welcomed the decision, opposition leaders expressed concerns about its implications for public safety. They warned that the ruling would allow over 200 non-citizens with serious criminal convictions, including those for violent crimes, to live in the community without any form of surveillance. Critics argued that the decision could put citizens at risk, with some calling for more effective ways to balance the rights of migrants with public safety.
This decision highlights the ongoing debate over immigration law in Australia, particularly regarding non-citizens with criminal records. The High Court’s ruling emphasizes the need to follow constitutional principles when addressing immigration and security issues. It remains unclear how the government will respond with new laws that both address security concerns and withstand legal challenges, while also satisfying opposition critics and public safety advocates.