Many court cases become famous or historic because of the controversy that surrounds them. While many cases follow existing laws there are some that interpret the law in a new and different way, setting new precedents. In 2004 the case of Al-Kateb v Godwin in the High Court of Australia did just that.
In the year 2000, a Palestinian man named Ahmed Al-Kateb who was born in Kuwait moved to Australia. Al-Kateb applied for a temporary protection visa which recognizes a person as a refugee who is fleeing persecution. A temporary protection visa (TPV) is issued to someone who applies for refugee status after arriving unauthorised in Australia. In Al-Kateb’s case, the Commonwealth Minister for Immigration made the decision to refuse his application. The Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court upheld the Commonwealth’s decision.
In 2002 it was Al-Kateb’s wish to then return to Kuwait or Gaxa, however, no country would accept him. Due to the countries refusal and Australia’s denial of a TPV Al-Kateb was declared stateless and wound up being detained within the policy of mandatory detention.
There were two issues that made this case so controversial. One is whether or not the Migration Act 1958 allowed for a person in Al-Kateb’s situation to be detained indefinitely. The Migration Act allowed unlawful non-citizens to be detained until their removal from the country, even when their removal could not take place in the foreseeable future. The second issue was if the Act did permit indefinite detainment was it actually legal under the Constitution of Australia.
These two points caused quite a debate, with two Justices offering differing views on the constitutional interpretation. The views these individuals expressed focused particularly on human rights and the role of international law. The High Court considered these issues and a majority ruled that the Act allowed for indefinite detention and was not unconstitutional.
At the time Al-Kateb was to be detained indefinitely until either a Middle Eastern state became willing to take him or a state of Palestine was created. The ruling sparked major controversy as many saw the scope of mandatory detention laws as a violation of human rights.
The case put pressure on the Immigration Minister and forced the Court to review other stateless people’s circumstances. At the time 24 people being held in immigration detention had their cases looked at for a second time. After reviewing Al-Kateb and 8 other people were granted bridging visas. In 2005 these people were released from detention, however, they were unable to study, work or obtain government benefits.
Al-Kateb has said of the situation that he was constantly worried about being sent back and had to rely on donations from friends and supporters. In the summer of 2007, he was granted a permanent visa by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews.
The case is used in academic circles as an example of the court taking differing approaches to statutory interpretations and how a legalistic approach can contrast with a purposive approach.