A person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. This is what a refugee is. On the 31st of August, the high court made its landmark decision, ruling that the federal government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Malaysia was unlawful.
There was a case about two plaintiffs who are citizens of Afghanistan, against the minister of immigration. The second plaintiff was only the age of 16. The plaintiffs arrived on Christmas Island on the 4th of August 2011, in a boat that had sailed to Australia from Indonesia. They both claim to have a deep fear of persecution in Afghanistan. Thus is why they decided to take the boat out of their country, and try to make a better life. The rights that were infringed in this case was the legally binding agreement bound by the international law or its own country’s law, which was that the Australian government should provide access for asylum seekers to have proper procedures for accessing their need for …show more content…
In return, Australia would resettle 4000 refugees currently residing in Malaysia. The plaintiffs were known as M70/11 and the second plaintiff who was only 16 was M106. The injunction was to stop the removal of a group of asylum seekers, who were to be flown to Malaysia the next day. The Allen’s Arthur Rouinson Lawyers supported the action. There were some conflicting attitudes with the case through Malaysia. Malaysia is a country where authorities practice canning. It is a country with a record of human rights abuse. In Malaysia, helpless people are put at risk if transferred to this country. These people will be at risk of detention, or even arrest. These arrests are due to regular immigration raids, which arrests are then carried
There was a case about two plaintiffs who are citizens of Afghanistan, against the minister of immigration. The second plaintiff was only the age of 16. The plaintiffs arrived on Christmas Island on the 4th of August 2011, in a boat that had sailed to Australia from Indonesia. They both claim to have a deep fear of persecution in Afghanistan. Thus is why they decided to take the boat out of their country, and try to make a better life. The rights that were infringed in this case was the legally binding agreement bound by the international law or its own country’s law, which was that the Australian government should provide access for asylum seekers to have proper procedures for accessing their need for …show more content…
In return, Australia would resettle 4000 refugees currently residing in Malaysia. The plaintiffs were known as M70/11 and the second plaintiff who was only 16 was M106. The injunction was to stop the removal of a group of asylum seekers, who were to be flown to Malaysia the next day. The Allen’s Arthur Rouinson Lawyers supported the action. There were some conflicting attitudes with the case through Malaysia. Malaysia is a country where authorities practice canning. It is a country with a record of human rights abuse. In Malaysia, helpless people are put at risk if transferred to this country. These people will be at risk of detention, or even arrest. These arrests are due to regular immigration raids, which arrests are then carried