It’s not in the function or capability of a court? Sez who? Oh, you do.

Well, that aside, it’s within the function, purview or capability of the Parliament to enact legislation which makes the courts responsible for determining such matters. And it’s entirely in keeping with the doctrine of the separation of powers that Parliament should do that rather than ceding the power to the Minister for Immigration as an executive perk of office, which is where things stand at the moment.

In brief – when parliament passed s501 of the Migration Act in 1998 (if memory serves), they comprehensively stuffed it.

warning to the young of the folly of onanism …

Lol

Yeah, but that’s not within the function or capability of a court. Deportation is not meant to be a secondary punishment for the accused (even though it may have that effect in practice). Instead, the purpose of deportation relates to national interest and public good issues which courts are not equipped to handle. Such criteria are normally left to governments.

I realise that many people who comment here would like to see all executive decision-making handed over to courts — at least until Australia has rid itself of TEH MONSTROUS EVIL that is the Howard government!

How serious does the crime have to be before we don’t get to hear their sob story?

There’s no limit. If deportation is to happen in this way, it should be after a court – not DIMIA or the Minister – has weighed the merits of the case.

And if you don’t want to hear the “sob story”, there’s no need to read the reports of deportation proceedings in the media. It’s as simple as that.

It seems you support retention in this country granting of full citizenship rights to non citizen criminals who happen to live here.

Do any of you oppose the granting of a visitors visa to holocause denier David Irving? (who to date has restricted himself to mouthing off on matters of history, & hasn’t physically attacked or stolen property of so much as one Australian household)

I also don’t like the appeal to ‘law and order’ and smug nationalism which this government thrives on and which cases like this are part of.

Not every case of deporting or imprisoning a criminal is “an appeal to law and order”. Sometimes its just the day-to-day job of carrying out law and order.

If either of these guys had done nothing worse than not paying parking fines or trying to import some porn I could really see your point. But they are violent criminals.

The proposed deportee should be given the opportunity to defend themselves with evidence that their character has improved.

How serious does the crime have to be before we don’t get to hear their sob story? Attempted murder and rape would qualify, I would think. Or would you rather we up it to mass-murder of Port Arthur magnitudes?

There would be an abrogation of principle were we to allow them to stay.

In brief – if anyone is going to make decisions like these it ought to be a member of the judiciary, in open court, with consideration of all available evidence. The proposed deportee should be given the opportunity to defend themselves with evidence that their character has improved.

As the law stands, it’s based on a crude count of years of imprisonment (including court ordered periods of residential drug rehabilitation or psychiatric treatment). If memory serves, there’s no requirement in the Act for the Minister to consider exculpatory evidence.

It’s very much a Star Chamber proceeding.

It’s the principle that counts. The direction in which this government is taking immigration policy  concerns and angers me. I also don’t like the appeal to ‘law and order’ and smug nationalism which this government thrives on and which cases like this are part of.