Okwume v Commonwealth of Australia [2016] FCA 1252

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Okwume v Commonwealth of Australia [2016] FCA 1252 File number: SAD 112 of 2015

Judge: CHARLESWORTH J

Date of judgment: 24 October 2016

Catchwords: HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT — federal jurisdiction – collateral challenge to a migration decision on a false imprisonment claim – migration decision not previously set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction – matters arising under a law of the Parliament – jurisdiction under s 476A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) not invoked TORT – false imprisonment – detention under s 189 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by three detaining officers – matters of fact and law known or reasonably capable of being known by detaining officers – respondent's onus of proof – false imprisonment established in relation to two detaining officers TORT – misfeasance in public office – alleged duty to facilitate freedom – alleged duty not established – breach of duty not established – requisite state of mind not established – individual public officer not joined as respondent — whether Crown in right of the Commonwealth may be vicariously liable for the tort of misfeasance in public office – vicarious liability not established on facts TORT – negligence – duty of care owed to persons held in immigration detention – fires razing accommodation buildings at an immigration detention centre — no breach established – application of Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) — causation not established MIGRATION – detention – interrelation between s 189 and s 196 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) MIGRATION – cancellation of visa under s 116(1)(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – applicable rules of procedural fairness – requisite particulars of information not provided to visa holder – where Minister's delegate impermissibly acted under the perceived need to carry out instructions of a supervisor MIGRATION – alleged presentation of a document reasonably suspected to be counterfeit in contravention of s 103 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where Minister's delegate relied upon expert opinion of a document examiner – visa holder wrongly deprived of opportunity to dissuade delegate from acting on the expert's opinion