2013 aushrc 67 stevanovic v cth (diac)_web.pdf

Stevanovic vCommonwealth

(DIAC)[2013] AusHRC 67

© Australian Human Rights Commission 2013.

ISSN 1837-1183

The Australian Human Rights Commission encourages the dissemination and exchange of information presented in this publication.

All material presented in this publication is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence, with the exception of the Australian Human Rights Commission Logo.

To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/3.0/au.

In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Australian Human Rights Commission and abide by the other licence terms.

Design and layout Dancingirl Designs

Printing Masterprint Pty Limited

Electronic format

This publication can be found in electronic format on the website of the Australian Human Rights Commission: www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/index.html.

Contact details

For further information about the Australian Human Rights Commission, please visit www.humanrights.gov.au or email [email protected]. You can also write to:

Communications Team Australian Human Rights Commission GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001

mailto:[email protected]

Stevanovic v Commonwealth (Department of Immigration and Citizenship)

Report into arbitrary deprivation of the right to enter one’s own country and freedom from interference with the family

[2013] AusHRC 67

Australian Human Rights Commission 2013

iv

1 Introduction 3

2 Summaryoffindingsandrecommendations 3

3 ThecomplaintbyMrStevanovic 33.1 Background 33.2 Findingsoffact 4

4 TheCommission’shumanrightsinquiryand complaintsfunction 5

5 Assessment 55.1 ActorpracticeoftheCommonwealth? 5

6 Inconsistentwith,orcontraryto,human rights 66.1 Righttoenterowncountry 66.2 Interferencewiththefamily 7

7 Findingsandrecommendations 87.1 Powertomakerecommendations 87.2 Considerationofcompensation 87.3 Recommendationthatcompensationbepaid 97.4 Apology 97.5 Policy 9

Contents

Stevanovic v Commonwealth (Department of Immigration and Citizenship) • [2013] AusHRC 67 • 1

Australian Human Rights Commission

Level3,175PittStreet,SydneyNSW2000 GPOBox5218,SydneyNSW2001Telephone:0292849600 Facsimile:0292849611 Website:www.humanrights.gov.au

1November2013

SenatortheHon.GeorgeBrandisQC Attorney-General ParliamentHouse CanberraACT2600

DearAttorney

Ihavecompletedmyreportpursuanttos 11(1)(f)(ii)oftheAustralian Human Rights Commission Act 1986(Cth)intothecomplaintmadebyMrSashaStevanovic.

IhavefoundthatthecancellationofMrStevanovic’svisahadtheeffectofarbitrarilydeprivinghimoftherighttoenterhisowncountrywithinthemeaningofarticle12(4)oftheInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR).

IhavealsofoundthattheinterferencewithMrStevanovic’sfamilyoccasionedbythecancellationofhisvisawasarbitrarywithinthemeaningofarticle17(1)oftheICCPRandbreachedarticle23(1)oftheICCPR.

Byletterdated16September2013,MrMartinBowles,SecretaryoftheDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship,providedaresponsetomyfindingsandrecommendations.Isetouthisresponsebelow.Inrelationtomyrecommendationthatthepaymentofcompensationintheamountof$20000isappropriate,theSecretaryoftheDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenshipresponded:

TheDepartmentcontinuestoconsiderthattheDepartmenthasnotbreachedAustralia’sobligationsunderArticle12(4),17(1)and23(1)oftheICCPRforthereasonssetoutinitspreviousresponses.

TheDepartmentnotesthatthePresident’srecommendationsinregardstocompensationpayabletoMrSashaStevanovic.However,theCommonwealthisonlyabletopaycompensationonthebasisofpotentiallegalliabilitywhereitisconsistentwiththeLegal Services Division Directions 2005.TheLegal Services Directions providethatamattermayonlybesettledwherethereisatleastameaningfulprospectofliabilitybeingestablishedagainsttheCommonwealth.Furthermore,theamountofcompensationthatisofferedmustbeinaccordancewithlegalprincipleandpractice.TheDepartmentisoftheviewthatthereisnotameaningfulprospectofliabilityunderAustraliandomesticlawinthesecircumstancesandthereforeisunabletopaycompensationtoMrStevanoviconthisbasis.

2

Yourssincerely

GillianTriggs President AustralianHumanRightsCommission

Insomecaseswherecompensationisnotpayableonthebasisoflegalliability,individualsareabletosuccessfullymakeaclaimfordiscretionarycompensation.Itdoesnotappearthatthepresentcircumstanceswouldsupportpaymentofcompensationunderthediscretionarycompensationschemes.However,itisopentoMrStevanovictomakeaclaimfordiscretionarycompensationifhewishestodoso.

InrelationtomyrecommendationthattheCommonwealthprovideaformalwrittenapologytoMrStevanovicforthebreachesofhishumanrightsidentifiedinthereport,theSecretaryoftheDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenshipresponded:

TheDepartmentalsonotesthePresident’srecommendationtoprovideawrittenapologytoMrStevanovic.TheDepartmentrespectfullydisagreeswiththisrecommendationasthedepartmentremainsoftheviewthatthecancellationofMrStevanovic’svisaandconsequentremovalwaslawfulduetotheseriousnatureofhiscriminaloffencesandtheneedtoprotecttheAustraliancommunity.

TheDepartmentadvisestheCommissionthattherewillbenoactiontakenwithregardtothisrecommendation.

Pleasefindenclosedacopyofmyreport.


1 Introduction1. ThisisareportsettingoutthefindingsoftheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionandthereasons

forthosefindingsfollowinganinquirybytheCommissionintoacomplaintlodgedbyMr SashaStevanovicthathistreatmentbytheCommonwealthofAustraliainvolvedactsorpracticesinconsistentwithorcontrarytohumanrights.

2 Summary of findings and recommendations

2. IfindthatthecancellationofMrStevanovic’svisahadtheeffectofarbitrarilydeprivinghimoftherighttoenterhisowncountrywithinthemeaningofarticle12(4)oftheInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR).

3. IalsofindthattheinterferencewithMrStevanovic’sfamilyoccasionedbythecancellationofhisvisawasarbitrarywithinthemeaningofarticle17(1)oftheICCPRandbreachedarticle23(1)oftheICCPR.

4. InlightofmyfindingsregardingtheactsorpracticesoftheCommonwealthImakethefollowingrecommendations:

• thattheCommonwealthpayfinancialcompensationtoMrStevanovicintheamountof$20 000;and

• thattheCommonwealthprovideaformalwrittenapologytoMrStevanovicforthebreachesof hishumanrightsidentifiedinthisreport.

3 The complaint by Mr Stevanovic3.1 Background5. On18November2011MrStevanoviclodgedacomplaintallegingthatthecancellationofhisvisa

whichrequiredhimtoleaveAustraliabreachedhishumanrights.

6. MrStevanovicandtheCommonwealthhavehadtheopportunitytorespondtomypreliminaryviewdated17September2012,andtomyamendedpreliminaryviewdated19March2013,whichsetouttheactsorpracticesraisedbythecomplaintthatappearedtobeinconsistentwithorcontrarytohumanrights.

7. MyfunctionininvestigatingcomplaintsofbreachesofhumanrightsisnottodeterminewhethertheCommonwealthhasactedconsistentlywithAustralianlawbutwhethertheCommonwealthhasactedconsistentlywithhumanrightsdefinedandprotectedbytheICCPR.

8. ItfollowsthatthecontentandscopeoftherightsprotectedbytheICCPRshouldbeinterpretedandunderstoodbyreferencetothetextoftherelevantarticlesoftheinternationalinstrumentsandbytheinternationaljurisprudenceabouttheirinterpretation.

4

3 The complaint by Mr Stevanovic

3.2 Findings of fact9. IconsiderthefollowingstatementsaboutthecircumstanceswhichgaverisetoMrStevanovic’s

complainttobeuncontentious.

10. On9October1970MrStevanovicandhisparentsmigratedfromSerbiatoAustralia.MrStevanovicwasthreeandahalfyearsold.MrStevanovicwasconsideredtoholdaTransitional(Permanent)visa.

11. MrStevanovicwasconvictedofarangeofoffencesin1986and1987.Hewasfined$200for‘Receiving’,fined$200andplacedonatwoyeargoodbehaviourbondfor‘Break,enterandsteal’andfined$300for‘Offensivelanguage’.

12. Between1988and1991MrStevanovicwasconvictedofarangeofdrivingoffences.

13. On27April1994MrStevanovicwasconvictedof‘Self-administeringaprohibiteddrug’andwasfined$400.

14. Between1994and1997MrStevanovicwaschargedwithanumberofdrugoffences.InDecember1997MrStevanovicwassentencedtoimprisonmentforaminimumtermofsevenyearsandthreemonthsfortheoffencesofmanufactureofacommercialquantityofaprohibiteddrug,conspiracytomanufactureaprohibiteddrugandknowinglytakepartinthemanufactureofaprohibiteddrug.

15. On22September2000theMinistercancelledMrStevanovic’sTransitional(Permanent)visapursuanttosection501(2)oftheMigration Act 1958(Cth)(MigrationAct)(cancellationofvisaoncharactergrounds).

16. On30September2004MrStevanovicwasreleasedfromprisonandwasremovedtoSerbia.

17. Inorabout2006,asaresultofthedecisioninNystrom v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,1 theCommonwealthreviewedthedecisiontocancelMrStevanovic’svisa.On29September2006MrStevanovicwasnotifiedthathecontinuedtoholdaTransitional(Permanent)visaandanabsorbedpersonsvisaandthattheDepartmentwasconsideringcancellingbothvisasundersection501(2)oftheMigrationAct.

18. AsaresultoftheappealdecisioninMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Nystrom2 theDepartmentformedtheviewthatthe22September2000decisiontocancelMrStevanovic’svisawas,infact,valid.However,theDepartmentconsideredthatthisdecisionwasmostlikelyinvalidonothergrounds.On8February2007theMinistercancelledMrStevanovic’svisaspursuanttosection501(2)oftheMigrationAct.

19. MrStevanovicwantstoreturntoAustralia.However,itislikelythatifMrStevanovicweretoapplyforavisa,hisapplicationwouldberejectedbecauseheisunabletosatisfySpecialReturnCriteria5001(c).3TheMinistercancelledMrStevanovic’svisabecausehereasonablysuspectedthatMr Stevanovicdidnotpassthecharactertestoutlinedinsection501(6)MigrationAct.MrStevanovicclaimsthatthecancellationofhisvisahadtheeffectofarbitrarilydeprivinghimofhisrighttoenterhisowncountrywithinthemeaningofarticle12(4)oftheICCPR.

20. MrStevanovicalsoclaimsthatthecancellationofhisvisahadtheeffectofarbitrarilyinterferingwithhisfamilywithinthemeaningofarticles17(1)and23(1)oftheICCPR.


4 The Commission’s human rights inquiry and complaints function

21. Section11(1)(f)oftheAustralian Human Rights Commission Act 1986(Cth)(AHRC Act)providesthattheCommissionhasafunctiontoinquireintoanyactorpracticethatmaybeinconsistentwithorcontrarytoanyhumanright.4

22. Section3(1)oftheAHRCActdefines‘act’toincludeanactdonebyoronbehalfoftheCommonwealth.Section3(3)providesthatthereferenceto,orthedoingof,anactincludesthereferencetotherefusalorfailuretodoanact.

23. ThefunctionsoftheCommissionidentifiedinsection11(1)(f)oftheAHRCActareonlyengagedwhereanactcomplainedofisnotonerequiredbylawtobetaken.5

5 Assessment

5.1 Act or practice of the Commonwealth?24. MrStevanoviccomplainsaboutbeingrequiredtoleaveAustralia.

25. BasedontheinformationprovidedtotheCommission,itappearsthatMrStevanovicwasremovedfromAustraliapursuanttosection198(1)oftheMigration Actbecausehewasanunlawfulnon-citizenwhoaskedtheMinister,inwriting,tobesoremoved.MrStevanovic’sremovalfromAustraliadidnotinvolveanexerciseofdiscretion.

26. However,MrStevanovicbecameanunlawfulnon-citizenbecausetheMinisterexercisedhisdiscretionundersection501(2)oftheMigrationActtocancelMrStevanovic’svisa.

27. WhilstMrStevanovic’sremovalfromAustraliadidnotinvolveanexerciseofdiscretionarypower,thedecisiontocancelhisvisadid.IconsiderthatthedecisionoftheMinistertocancelMrStevanovic’svisawasanactoftheCommonwealthwithinthemeaningofsection3oftheAHRCAct.

6

6 Inconsistent with, or contrary to, human rights

6.1 Right to enter own country28. TheUnitedNationsHumanRightsCommittee(UNHRC)hasindicatedthatthefirstquestionrelevant

totheassessmentofwhetheranindividualhasbeenarbitrarilydeprivedoftherighttoenterhisorherowncountryiswhetherthecountrywasinfactthatperson’sowncountry.6Theconceptof‘owncountry’isnotlimitedtonationalitybutextendstoanindividualwho,becauseofhisorherspecialtiestocountry,cannotbeconsideredtobeamerealien.7

29. TheCommonwealthclaimsthatAustraliawasnotMrStevanovic’sowncountry.TheCommonwealthclaimsthatSerbiaisMrStevanovic’sowncountrybecauseheretainedSerbiannationalityanddidnotseektoacquireAustraliannationalitydespitenounreasonableimpedimentsbeingplacedonMr Stevanovic’sabilitytoobtainAustraliancitizenship.

30. MrStevanovicarrivedinAustraliawhenhewasthreeandahalfyearsold.AllofhisimmediatefamilyliveinAustralia.MrStevanovicadvisedthatatthetimeofhisremovalfromAustralia,hedidnotknowanyoneinSerbiaanddidnotspeakSerbian.

31. MrStevanovicclaimsthathedidnotobtainAustraliancitizenshipbecausehedidnotrealisethathehadto.MrStevanovicclaimsthat,becausehecametoAustraliaonhismother’spassport,hethoughtthathewouldautomaticallybecomeanAustraliancitizenwhenhismotherbecameanAustraliancitizen.InotethatMrStevanovicheldanabsorbedpersonsvisa.

32. IamsatisfiedthatAustraliawasMrStevanovic’s‘owncountry’withinthemeaningofarticle12(4)oftheICCPRinlightofthestrongtiesconnectinghimtoAustralia:thepresenceofhisfamilyinAustralia,thelanguagethathespeaks,thedurationofhisstayinAustraliaandthelackofanyties,otherthannationality,withSerbia.

33. ThenextquestionrelevanttodeterminingwhetherMrStevanovic’srightshavebeenbreachedunderarticle12(4)iswhethertheCommonwealthhasarbitrarilydeprivedMrStevanovicoftherighttoenterhisowncountry.ConsiderationofthearbitrarinessoftheinterferencerequiresthatIconsiderthebalancebetweentheCommonwealth’sreasonsforremovingMrStevanovicandthedegreeofhardshipthathewouldencounterasaconsequenceoftheremoval.

34. TheCommonwealthstatesthatithasnotarbitrarilydeprivedMrStevanovicoftherighttoenterhisowncountry.TheCommonwealthstatesthattheAustralianGovernmenthasanobligationtoensure,whereverpossible,theprotectionoftheAustraliancommunity.

35. On22September2000theMinistercancelledMrStevanovic’svisapursuanttosection501(2)oftheMigrationAct.Section501(2)oftheMigrationActprovidesthattheMinistermaycancelavisathathasbeengrantedtoapersoniftheMinisterreasonablysuspectsthatthepersondoesnotpassthecharactertestandthepersondoesnotsatisfytheMinisterthatheorshepassesthecharactertest.TheMinisterisnotrequiredtocancelavisaonthegroundthatapersondoesnotpassthecharactertest,buthasadiscretiontodoso.


36. TheCommonwealthhasbeenunabletoproduceacopyoftheMinister’sdecisionof22September2000.InotethatMrStevanovicwasapersonwitha‘substantialcriminalrecord’withinthemeaningofsection501(7)oftheMigrationActbecausehewasapersonwhowassentencedtoatermofimprisonmentof12monthsormore.Asapersonwitha‘substantialcriminalrecord’hedoesnotpassthecharactertest(section506(6)MigrationAct).

37. TheeffectofthecancellationofMrStevanovic’svisapursuanttosection501(2)oftheMigrationActisthatSpecialReturnCriteria5001appliestohimandheispermanentlyexcludedfromreturningtoAustralia.WithoutMinisterialinterventioninhisfavour,heispermanentlybarredfromenteringAustralia.

38. MrStevanovicwasgrantedparoleandwasreleasedfromprison.Whilstheisapersonwithacriminalrecord,thereisnoevidencebeforemethatheisapersonwhoposesarisktotheAustraliancommunity.

39. TheUNHRChasstatedthattherearefew,ifany,circumstancesinwhichdeprivationoftherighttoenterone’sowncountrycouldbereasonable.8IhavefoundthatAustraliawasMrStevanovic’sowncountry.

40. IamoftheviewthattheconsiderationsthatweighedinfavourofnotcancellingMrStevanovic’svisa(includingthepresenceofhisfamilyinAustralia,thelanguagehespeaks,thedurationofhisstayinAustraliaandthelackofanytiesotherthannationalitytoSerbia)shouldhaveoutweighedthefactorsthatfavouredcancellingMrStevanovic’svisa.Accordingly,IfindthatthecancellationofMr Stevanovic’svisaarbitrarilydeprivedhimofhisrighttoenterhisowncountrywithinthemeaningofarticle12(4)oftheICCPR.

6.2 Interference with the family41. ThefirstquestionrelevanttowhetherMrStevanovic’srightshavebeenbreachedunderarticles

17(1)and23(1)oftheICCPRiswhethertherehasbeenaninterferencewiththefamily.TheCommonwealth’sdecisiontocancelMrStevanovic’svisahadtheeffectofremovinghimfromthecountrythathehadlivedinforthevastmajorityofhislifeandseparatinghimfromhismother,father,brotherandsister.MrStevanovicstatesthatheknewnobodyinSerbiaatthetimethathewasremovedfromAustralia.IconsiderthatthecancellationofMrStevanovic’svisawhichledtohisremovalfromAustraliainterferedwithhisfamily.

42. ThenextquestionrelevanttodeterminingwhetherMrStevanovic’srightshavebeenbreachedunderarticles17(1)and23(1)iswhethertheCommonwealth’sinterferencewithMrStevanovic’sfamilywasarbitrary.ConsiderationofthearbitrarinessofinterferencewiththefamilyrequiresthatIconsiderthebalancebetweentheCommonwealth’sreasonsforremovingMrStevanovicandthedegreeofhardshipthathisfamilywouldencounterasaconsequenceoftheremoval.9

43. Asnotedinparagraphs35-36,theMinistercancelledMrStevanovic’svisapursuanttosection501(2)oftheMigrationAct.ItappearslikelythattheMinistercancelledMrStevanovic’svisabecausehewasapersonwhohadbeensentencedtoatermofimprisonmentof12monthsormore.However,Mr Stevanovicservedhistermofimprisonmentandwasgrantedparole.ThereisnoinformationbeforemetosuggestthatMrStevanovicposedarisktotheAustraliancommunity.

44. ConsideringthehardshiptoMrStevanovicandhisfamily,InotethatMrStevanovichadnofamilytiesinSerbiaanddidnotspeakSerbianatthetimethathewasremovedfromAustralia.MrStevanovichadlivedinAustraliasincehewasthreeandahalfyearsoldandhisentireimmediatefamilylivesinAustralia.

8

6 Inconsistent with, or contrary to, human rights

45. ThereislittleinformationbeforetheCommissionaboutthenatureofMrStevanovic’sfamilyrelationships.WhilstMrStevanovichadbeeninprisonforsevenyearsimmediatelybeforebeingremovedfromAustralia,Idonotconsiderthatthisisevidencethathedidnothavestrongtiestohisfamily.Inotethatin2006,followinghisremovalfromAustralia,MrStevanovic’smothervisitedhiminSerbiaforaperiodofonemonth.ThissuggeststhatMrStevanovicmaintainedacloserelationshipatleastwithhismotheratthetimehewasremovedfromAustralia.

46. WhilstMrStevanoviccanmaintaincontactwithhisfamilyviatelephoneandemail,MrStevanovicisnotpermittedtoreturntoAustralia,eitherpermanentlyorforavisit,withouttheMinisterinterveninginhisfavour.

47. Forthereasonsoutlinedabove,IamoftheviewthattheinterferencewithMrStevanovic’sfamilylifewasdisproportionatetothelegitimateaimofprotectingtheAustraliancommunityfromnon-citizenswithacriminalrecord.Accordingly,IfindthattheinterferencewithMrStevanovic’sfamilywasarbitrarywithinthemeaningofarticles17(1)and23(1)oftheICCPR.

7 Findings and recommendations

7.1 Power to make recommendations48. Where,afterconductinganinquiry,theCommissionfindsthatanactorpracticeengagedinbya

respondentisinconsistentwithorcontrarytoanyhumanright,theCommissionisrequiredtoservenoticeontherespondentsettingoutitsfindingsandreasonsforthosefindings.10TheCommissionmayincludeinthenoticeanyrecommendationforpreventingarepetitionoftheactoracontinuationofthepractice.11

49. TheCommissionmayalsorecommend:

• thepaymentofcompensationto,orinrespectof,apersonwhohassufferedlossordamage;and

• thetakingofotheractiontoremedyorreducethelossordamagesufferedbyaperson.12

7.2 Consideration of compensation50. Thereisnojudicialguidancedealingwiththeassessmentofrecommendationsforfinancial

compensationforbreachesofhumanrightsundertheAHRCAct.

51. However,inconsideringtheassessmentofarecommendationforcompensationundersection35oftheAHRCAct(relatingtodiscriminationmattersunderPartII,Division4oftheAHRCAct),theFederalCourthasindicatedthattortprinciplesfortheassessmentofdamagesshouldbeapplied.13

52. Iamoftheviewthatthisistheappropriateapproachtotaketothepresentmatter.Forthisreason,so farasispossibleinthecaseofarecommendationforcompensation,theobjectshouldbetoplacetheinjuredpartyinthesamepositionasifthewronghadnotoccurred.14

53. Ihaveconsideredanyeconomicandnon-economiclossexperiencedbyMrStevanovic.


7.3 Recommendation that compensation be paid54. IhavefoundthattheMinister’scancellationofMrStevanovic’svisabreachedarticles12(4),17(1)and

23(1)oftheICCPR.

55. MrStevanovicdidnotsufferanyeconomiclossasaresultofhisremovalfromAustralia.Mr StevanovicwasnotemployedatthetimethathewasremovedfromAustraliaandhadbeeninprisonfortheprecedingsevenyears.

56. ConsideringMrStevanovic’snon-economicloss,MrStevanovichasprovidednoevidenceofpsychologicalorotherinjurycausedbyhisremovalfromAustralia.However,hehasdescribedthesignificanthardshipthathehasexperiencedasaresultofbeingrequiredtoleavehisfamilyandthecountrythathehadlivedinsincehewasthreeandahalfyearsoldtoliveinacountrywhereheknewnooneanddidnotspeakthelanguage.

57. Assessingcompensationinsuchcircumstancesisdifficultandrequiresadegreeofjudgment.I considerthattheCommonwealthshouldpayMrStevanovicanamountof$20000tocompensatehimforthepainandsufferingthatheexperiencedasaresultofthebreachesofhisrightsunderarticles12(4),17(1)and23(1)oftheICCPR.

7.4 Apology58. Inadditiontocompensation,IconsiderthatitwouldbeappropriatefortheCommonwealthto

provideaformalwrittenapologytoMrStevanovicforthebreachesofhishumanrights.Apologiesareimportantremediesforbreachesofhumanrights.They,atleasttosomeextent,alleviatethesufferingofthosewhohavebeenwronged.15

7.5 Policy59. IhavealsoconsideredwhethertheCommonwealthshouldamenditspolicieswithrespecttothe

cancellationofvisasundersection501oftheMigrationAct.

60. MinisterialDirection55providesdirectiontodecisionmakerswithrespecttoperformingfunctionsandexercisingpowersundersection501oftheMigrationAct.MinisterialDirection55replacedMinisterialDirection4116andcommencedon1September2012.

61. TheMinisterisnotboundtofollowMinisterialDirectionsbutotherdecisionmakersaresobound.

62. MinisterialDirection55statesthatindecidingwhethertocancelaperson’svisapursuanttosection501thestrength,durationandnatureoftheperson’stiestoAustraliaareprimaryconsiderations.17 MinisterialDirection55furtherstatesthatotherrelevantconsiderationsincludebutarenotlimitedto:

(b) Effectofcancellationoftheperson’svisaontheperson’simmediatefamilyinAustralia,if thosefamilymembersareAustraliancitizens,permanentresidents,orpeoplewhohavea righttoremaininAustraliaindefinitely.

(d) TheextentofanyimpedimentsthatthepersonmayfaceifremovedfromAustraliatotheirhomecountry,inestablishingthemselvesandmaintainingbasiclivingstandards(inthecontextofwhatisgenerallyavailabletoothercitizensofthatcountry)takingintoaccount:

i Theperson’sageandhealth ii Whethertherearesubstantiallanguageorculturalbarriers;and iiiAnysocial,medicaland/oreconomicsupportavailableinthatcountry.18

10

7 Findings and recommendations

63. WhentheMinistercancelledMrStevanovic’svisain2007,MinisterialDirection21wasinforce.TheprimaryconsiderationsfordecisionmakersunderMinisterialDirection21didnotincludethestrength,durationandnatureoftheperson’stiestoAustralia.

64. MinisterialDirection21providedthattheextentofdisruptiontothenon-citizen’sfamily,businessandothertiestotheAustraliancommunitywasoneofthe‘otherconsiderations’relevanttothedecisiontocancelavisa.

65. Ministerialdirection21statedthatthe‘otherconsiderations’althoughnotprimaryconsiderationsmayberelevantandthatitisappropriatethatotherconsiderationsbetakenintoaccount,butthatgenerallytheybegivenlessindividualweightthanthatgiventotheprimaryconsiderations.

66. ItistobewelcomedthatMinisterialDirection55providesforamoreexplicitconsiderationofaperson’sconnectiontoAustraliaandthehardshipthatapersonmayexperienceifreturnedtoanunfamiliarcountry.

67. Inthecircumstances,Imakenorecommendationinthisregard.

1 [2005]FCAFC121.2 [2006]HCA50.3 Specialreturncriterion5001(c)requiresthedecisionmakertobesatisfiedthatthevisaapplicantisnotapersonwhosevisahasbeen

cancelledundersection501,whollyorpartlybecauseofparagraph501(6)(a)(substantialcriminalrecord).4 Section3(1)oftheAHRCActdefineshumanrightstoincludetherightsrecognisedbytheICCPR.5 See,Secretary,Department of Defence v HREOC, Burgess & Ors(‘Burgess’)(1997)78FCR208.6 UnitedNationsHumanRightsCommittee,Generalcomment27:FreedomofMovement.CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/add[20]-[21].7 UnitedNationsHumanRightsCommittee,Generalcomment27:FreedomofMovement.CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/add[20].SeealsoStewart

v CanadaCommunicationNo538/1993,UNDocCCPR/C/58/D/538/1993(1996),Canepa v CanadaCommunicationNo558/1993UN DocCCPR/C/D/558/1993(1997),Nystrom v AustraliaCommunicationNo1557/2007UNDocCCPR/C/102/1557/2007,Warsame v CanadaCommunicationNo1959/2010UNDocCCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010.

8 Nystrom v Australia CommunicationNo1557/2007UNDocCCPR/C/102/1557/2007[7.6].9 Madafferi v AustraliaCommunicationNo1011/2001.CCPR/C/D/1011/2001[9.8].10 AHRCActs 29(2)(a).11 AHRCActs29(2)(b).12 AHRCActs29(2)(c).13 Peacock v Commonwealth(2000)104FCR464,483(WilcoxJ).14 SeeHall v A Sheiban Pty Limited(1989)20FCR217,239(LockhartJ).15 DShelton,Remedies in International Human Rights Law(2000)151.16 MinisterialDirection41replacedMinisterialDirection21,whichwasinforceatthetimethatMrStevanovicwasremovedfromAustralia.17 MinisterialDirectionNo.55,9(b).18 MinisterialDirectionNo.55,10(a),(d).

GillianTriggs President AustralianHumanRightsCommission

1November2013

FurtherInformationAustralian Human Rights Commission

Level 3, 175 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Telephone: (02) 9284 9600

Complaints Infoline: 1300 656 419General enquiries and publications: 1300 369 711TTY: 1800 620 241Fax: (02) 9284 9611Website: www.humanrights.gov.au

For detailed and up to date information about the Australian Human Rights Commission visit our website at: www.humanrights.gov.au

To order more publications from the Australian Human Rights Commission download a Publication Order Form at: www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/index.html or call: (02) 9284 9600 fax: (02) 9284 9611 or email: [email protected]

Australian Human Rights Commissionwww.humanrights.gov.au

2013 aushrc 67 stevanovic v cth (diac)_web.pdf

Documents