Wikipedia:Peer review/Al-Kateb v Godwin/archive1

Al-Kateb v Godwin

Ultimately aiming for FA status for this; at the moment I'm mainly interested in whether it makes sense for non-law type people, although any feedback is more than welcome. --bainer (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case and article. The article is a dense read, for me at least, but as a non-law type person, the article seemed to make sense, so mission accomplished I guess. Some minor comments:

The lead is good, but maybe a bit short.

I've expanded it a little. Is there anything else that you'd like to see there?

his application was dismissed, despite a case with substantially identical facts resulting in the release of another detainee. really left me hanging ... why? The same case was noted again later in the article and both times, without further discussion of it made me think this might be a bit POV. Take this with a grain of salt though, I just thought it weird that two different rulings on the same circumstances could happen like that.

I've cleared that up a bit. The other case was decided 12 days later by an appeals court higher up the food chain - that better result higher up was one reason why he appealed.

Section 196 of the Migration Act provides that unlawful non-citizens can only be released from immigration detention if they are granted a visa, deported, or removed from Australia Section 198(6) of the Act requires immigration officials to "remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen" is weird. I think there is just a full stop missing there.

Yes, just a full stop missing.

Each judge delivered a separate judgment, although Justice Heydon agreed entirely with Justice Hayne. Justices McHugh, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon formed the majority, finding that the Migration Act did permit indefinite detention. Chief Justice Gleeson and Justices Gummow and Kirby dissented. could do with a bit of work I think. The last part is kinda tacked on there and I think the fact that Heydon agreed entirely with Hayne should be moved towards the end of the paragraph. Cheers, --darkliight^[πalk] 19:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph is basically intended to summarise which judges went one way and which went the other way. I've changed it a little, let me know what you think.

I think that is much better, though there probably shouldn't be a single sentence paragraph there. This is just a suggestion to fix that, but whatever you think is best ofcourse:

The ultimate decision was four judges to three deciding that the Migration Act did permit indefinite detention. Each judge delivered a separate judgment with Justices McHugh, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon forming the majority, although Justice Heydon agreed entirely with Justice Hayne, and offered no extra reasoning. Chief Justice Gleeson and Justices Gummow and Kirby dissented, finding instead that the Migration Act should not be interpreted to permit indefinite detention.

Hope that helps, and thanks for addressing the other points. Cheers, --darkliight^[πalk] 02:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that flows much better. Cheers. --bainer (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions! My responses are in blue text. --bainer (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, this is a fantastic article. You've really got a good knack for writing caselaw articles. I've just got a couple of minor quibbles:

the sentence "On the issue of whether indefinite detention for migration purposes infringed on Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, not every judge decided, although a majority of judges deciding did find that the detention scheme was constitutional" seems kind of odd

I've clarified this paragraph, making it clearer that not all judges reached a final decision on this issue, and naming the ones who did.

I also think it might warrant a sentence or two to just try and explain why the issue of inconsistency was raised - while I know, most people reading the article probably wouldn't.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, could you clarify? Do you mean the inconsistent decision in the Al Masri case?

the paragraph about whether he should or not be named seems to me to be rather confused - it reads like two different issues jammed into one paragraph

I've cleared up the order of that paragraph to make it clearer that that exchange was included because it illustrates the way in which the usual procedures in the immigration system aren't adapted to stateless people. Also because someone out-compassions Kirby :)

Apart from that, it is excellent. Rebecca 13:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, responses in blue. --bainer (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a bit on what each judge gave for their decision if you want to improve this article - if you've read the case the decisions are actually quite diverse in the reasons that they gave. Particular reference should be given to the Kirby and McHugh JJ debate - McHugh describing Kirby's internationalist views as "heretical" and Kirby retorting that McHugh's views have no place in modern society... this case is a very important administrative law case regarding the role of human rights in Australian administrative law and so that point should be brought out. (JROBBO 06:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You also might like to read McHugh J's speech to Sydney University Law School shortly after his retirement from the High Court. I'm told that not in the speech itself, but in the proceedings that he admitted that he regretted his decision in the case - but still said that the state of Australia's migration and administrative law was such that the High Court could simply not recognise indefinite mandatory detention as unlawful while Australia had no legislative protection against human rights abuses. He seems to be very much in favour of a Bill of Rights which would have changed the decision in this case. See http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/mchughj/mchughj_12oct05.pdf. (JROBBO 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Postscript: the article has been updated with a new section on the ongoing constitutional interpretation debate, and material on McHugh's speech. --bainer (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]