Official documents revealed that the Albanian government approved the legal challenge that freed 151 illegal detainees, including murderers and pedophiles.
The documents reveal that Attorney General Mark Dreyfus, personally vetted by publicly funded lawyers, could take the case to the high court to free a child rapist from indefinite detention.
Even though the man’s case was against the Commonwealth, Mr Dreyfus hired publicly funded lawyers to assist him, provided they were represented by the Australian Human Rights Commission, not the the Commonwealth.
After receiving the green light from the government, AHRC lawyers helped win the case, resulting in the release of an additional 150 detainees.
Several have since been returned to prison after allegedly violating their visa curfew, while others have been allowed to move around unchecked, without ankle monitors.
Opposition immigration spokesman Dan Tehan told Daily Mail Australia the government had only itself to blame for the debacle.
Mr Dreyfus allowed “the taxpayer-funded Human Rights Commission to argue in court against Australia’s interests in keeping these criminals in detention”, he said.
“The Albanian Labor government has released 151 hardened criminals, including seven murderers, 37 sex offenders and 72 violent offenders, onto Australian streets – but it refuses to accept responsibility.”
Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus’ letter authorizing the use of publicly funded lawyers to argue against the Commonwealth in a case that ultimately saw 151 foreign offenders released onto Australian streets.
On May 22 last year, the chair of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Rosalind Croucher, wrote to Mr Dreyfus and asked him to approve the use of lawyers to make a submission in support of the Rohingya Muslim protesting his detention.
The man, who went by the legal alias NZYQ, was a Rohingya Muslim who had served a three-year prison sentence in Australia for raping a 10-year-old child, but was unable to be returned home to Myanmar in due to possible religious and ethnic persecution. .
In his letter to Mr Dreyfus, Professor Croucher noted that Coalition ministers had prevented the Commission from “intervening” in 2019 and 2022 in cases affecting the legality of indefinite detention.
In 2019, Attorney General Christian Porter told him he wanted the Commission to “advocate positions on constitutional issues that may diverge from the general Commonwealth position”.
Professor Croucher said she found this position “particularly concerning” as it misunderstood “the role of the Commission as an independent statutory agency with a human rights-based mandate”.
An AHRC spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia that the body’s role was “to assist the Court by providing written and oral submissions on the legal issues raised in the proceedings”, despite the fact that its contribution was requested by the plaintiff’s lawyers.
“When the Commission intervenes in legal proceedings, it is independent of government and does not represent the Commonwealth,” the spokesperson said.
On On June 5, Mr Dreyfus responded to Professor Croucher and signed the ARHC using in-house lawyers and engaging external lawyers to “intervene” on behalf of the NZYQ.
In giving his approval, Mr. Dreyfus made it a condition that the Council’s proposals be made under his name and not that of the Commonwealth, although the body is publicly funded.
The success of NZYQ’s appeal led the High Court to order the release of a further 150 people in November, including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders who could not be returned to their countries of origin. origin for various reasons.
Since the general release, seven former detainees have been arrested for violating visa conditions, and three have remained in detention for violating bail conditions or because they were considered too risky to be released.
Attorney General Mark Dreyfus approved the use of lawyers by a government agency to argue in court against the Commonwealth over the release of detained migrants.
One of the released inmates seen at a western Sydney hotel after their ordered release
The ARHC told Daily Mail Australia it was not involved in the new legal challenge brought by an Iranian citizen, referred to as ASF1, who is appealing his indefinite detention.
If successful, it could pave the way for the release of at least 191 other people who “refuse to cooperate with authorities.”
ASF1 says he cannot return to Iran because, as a bisexual man, he faces the death penalty upon his return.
The Commonwealth has not offered to deport him to any country other than Iran, although he is prepared to go to a third country, according to its findings.
Mr. Tehan accuses the government of not being prepared if the court decision is not favorable to it.
“Labour is still making a mess of immigration,” he said.
“They don’t have a plan to deal with the criminals already released from immigration detention centers and they don’t have a plan to deal with the additional 190 criminals who could be released next month.”
The High Court is set to hear another person challenged in indefinite detention, which could lead to the release of 191 more people.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Home Secretary Claire O’Neil said the government could only respond to the High Court’s ruling.
“We are not above the High Court, no government is,” Mr Albanese said.
“And so we respond appropriately.” We are putting all measures in place to ensure that the safety of the community is our priority.
Ms O’Neil said on Friday the High Court “through a series of major decisions, has drawn new boundaries around the powers of the executive and Parliament”.
“And there continues to be uncertainty about exactly where those lines will ultimately be drawn when it comes to key aspects of immigration law,” she said.
However, the opposition claims the original trial was lost because Immigration Minister Andrew Giles, who was the accused, admitted a set of facts that made it unlikely NZYQ would be deported to any country third party due to his criminal record.
The High Court found that NZYQ’s attempts to deport had shown no reasonable signs of success before ruling that people could not be “punished” by being kept in detention indefinitely without a court order.