For example, Sagar v O'Sullivan [2011] FCA182; Parkin v O'Sullivan (2009) 260 ALR 503; Leghaei v Director General of Security (2007) 241 ALR 141.
2.
Australian Law Reform Commission (‘ALRC’), Keeping Secrets: The Protection of Classified and Security Sensitive Information, Report 98 (2004), 408.
3.
SaulBen, ‘The Kafka-esque Case of Sheikh Mansour Leghaei: The Denial of the International Human Right to a Fair Hearing in National Security Assessments and Migration Proceedings in Australia’ (2010) 33UNSW Law Journal629; HardyKeiran, ‘Adverse Security Assessments, and a Denial of Procedural Fairness’ (2009) 17(1) Australian Journal of Administrative Law39; BushCaroline, ‘National Security and Natural Justice’ (2008) 57AIAL Forum78.
4.
Respectively, Australian Human Rights Commission (‘AHRC’), Submission to the Independent Review of the Intelligence Community, April 2011; UN Human Rights Committee, Communication Nos 2094/2011 (28 August 2011) and 2136/2011 (21 March 2012); Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network, Final Report, March 2012; UNHCR, ‘Chair's Summary’, Expert Roundtable on National Security Assessments for Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Stateless Persons in Australia, Canberra, 3 May 2012; M47/2012 v Director General of Security [2012] HCA; Plaintiff Sl38/2012 v Australian Security Intelligence Organisation & Ors (28 May 2012) (pending).
5.
Under the Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 4, Public Interest Criteria 4002; Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65(1).
6.
ASIO Act 1979 (Cth), s 54.
7.
Leghaei v Director General of Security [2005] FCA1576, paras 83–88, affirmed on appeal in Leghaei v Director General of Security (2007) 241 ALR 141, 146–147.
8.
Attorney General, Independent Review Function — Terms of Reference, October 2012.
9.
Sagar v O'Sullivan [2011] FCA182, 73 (TraceyJ).
10.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 196 and 198.
11.
Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA37. Al-Kateb is being reopened in the High Court in 2012: Above n 4.
12.
Peak bodies that have criticised the adverse mental health consequences of protracted immigration detention include the: Australian Medical Association, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Royal Australian College of Physicians, Committee of Presidents of Medical Colleges, Alliance of Health Professionals concerned about the Health of Asylum Seekers and their Children, Australian College of Mental Health Nurses, Australian Psychological Society, and Australian Human Rights Commission.
13.
Letter from Commonwealth Attorney-General Nicola Roxon to the author, dated 25 May 2012, on file.
14.
See SaulBen, Supplementary Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network, Final Report, March 2012.
15.
A and others v United Kingdom, ECHR App No. 3455/05 (19 February 2009), paras 217–220.
16.
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (2001), (Canada), s 77(1).
17.
ASIO Act 1979 (Cth), ss 37(2) and 38.
18.
See Parkin v O'Sullivan (2009) 260 ALR 503; Sagar v O'Sullivan [2011] FCA182.
19.
R v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC586 (21 February 2006), paras 28–42.
20.
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada), s 85; Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (UK), s 6; Immigration Act 2009 (New Zealand), s 263.
21.
KavanaghAileen, ‘Special Advocates, Control Orders and the Right to a Fair Trial’ (2010) 73Modern Law Review836, 838; Amnesty International (Canada)2007, in Bill C-3: An Act to amend IRPA (2007), 22.
22.
A v Australia (UNHRC 560/1993), 3 April 1997, para 9.4; Shafiq v Australia (UNHRC 1324/2004), 13 November 2006, para 7.2.
23.
Respectively, Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Schedule 1: Criminal Code, Division 104; Division 101; and Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 198AB (a ‘residence determination’).
24.
Jalloh v The Netherlands (UNHRC 794/1998), 26 March 2002, para 8.2; Chahal v UK (1996) 23 EHRR 413, para 112–113; A and ors v UK, ECHR App. No. 3455/05 (19 February 2009), para 167.
