Federal Court of Australia
SHEAHAN J.
24 JUNE 1983
MIGRATION - order of review of Magistrate's decision that
applicant be detained in custody for 7 days pursuant to s.38
of the Migration Act.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - investing a Supreme Court of a State with federal jurisdiction pursuant to s.32A of the Federal Court
of Australia Act, 1976.
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 197", su. oo, 13 Aaminiser Ss. '
Migration Act, 1958, ss. 38, 39, 40
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s.32A
H.S. KURTZE v. MR PETER MITCHELL, STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE AT BRISBANE AND THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS
QLD G37 OF 1983
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G37 of 1983 GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN :
HARMUT SIEGFRIED KURTZE
Applicant AND: MR PETER MITCHELL, STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE AT BRISBANE First Respondent AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Second Respondent SHEAHAN J. 24 JUNE 1982
EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I have before me an application for an order of review in which the applicant is Harmut Siegfried Kurtze and the first respondent is Mr Peter Mitchell, Stipendiary Magistrate in Brisbane, a prescribed authority within the meaning of 3.40 of the Migration Act 1958. The second respondent is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic
Affairs. The application, in substance, is to review an order of the first respondent that the applicant be detained
in custody for a period of seven days pursuant to s.38 of the Migration Act 1958. The basic ground on which the application is argued is that the order of the magistrate was not lawfully made, and that the applicant at the time of
the application of the order was unlawfully detained in
custody.
LO MINS es ee AY oe
nN
Basically, the substance of the argument in favour of the applicant is that the first respondent, Mr Mitchell, could not be reasonably satisfied that the period of detention ordered by him was reasonably required in order to enable the second respondent to consider whether the applicant is a prohibited immigrant, and whether a4 deportation order should be made in respect of him. The matter comes before me pursuant to 3.32A of the Federal
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate