IMAGE.....
https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/5f2c89d972b35df4e6a06314d605f053impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=413&cropW=621&xPos=0&yPos=55&width=862&height=575




Posted 55m ago  [2023-Nov-01  Wed]
One of Australia's most notorious convicted terrorists, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, has won his High Court bid to restore his Australian citizenship.........
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-01/terrorist-abdul-benbrika-citizenship-rest...



.





------- >


Yadda said.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1570367530/2#2
Quote:

I think this is as stupid a decision by the High Court as the one about foreign born Aborigines who never held Australian citizenship cannot, nevertheless, be deported.


Cancelling citizenship is not a punishment. It is the withdrawal of a privilege that would not have been granted AFTER he was convicted.
The bastards is also an Algerian citizen.


https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case_m90-2022


In June 2022 the high court restored the Australian citizenship of Delil Alexander, a Turkish citizen who was assessed to have joined Islamic State. The court found powers to strip citizenship gave the minister a role in adjudging and punishing criminal guilt, something that should be reserved only for courts.

On Wednesday the high court similarly found in Benbrika’s favour in what it described as a “sequel” to Alexander’s case, ruling that section 36D of the Citizenship Act is invalid as it confers powers to the minister that should be exclusive to the judiciary.

In a dissenting ruling, justice Simon Steward agreed with the commonwealth that it has “never been an essentially judicial function to make orders which denationalise a person”.

Steward said the purpose of citizenship cancellation “is not to sanction proscribed conduct” but rather “recognition that by extreme conduct that person has inexorably separated themselves from the people as a community and from Australia itself”.

Steward noted findings by the trial judge in 2009 that there was “no evidence” before that court that “Benbrika has, in any way, renounced his commitment to violent jihad and hence to terrorism”.

Steward concluded that “cancellation here is simply … acknowledgment of something which has in fact already occurred: a person’s rejection of membership of the Australian body politic”.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/01/abdul-nacer-benbrika-aust...


Courts do not grant citizenship, the Minister does. But the judges reserve the power to withdraw citizenship to themselves. Bizarre.

Deport him to Israel - they will accept him.

Section 36D does not confer exclusively judicial power on Minister (RS [47]-[56])
11. Applying Alexander at [96], s 36D does not purport to confer an exclusively judicial
power on the Minister. It is, therefore, valid. Three factors support that conclusion.
12. First, the Minister’s power to impose citizenship cessation is enlivened only where a
court has found the relevant facts, and where, as a result, the person has been found guilty
of an offence that is inimical to Australia’s interests. Consequently, s 36D does not
exhibit the vice of s 36B. The applicant’s submissions that the Minister has a
“substantial” fact-finding role under s 36D(1)(c) and (d) must be rejected (cf AS [41]-
[43]; ASR [8]-[9]). That construction is contrary to the text of the provision. Further,
this Court rejected a similar argument in Minogue (2018) 264 CLR 252 (Vol 6, Tab 52).
13. Second, no Australian legislation has historically involved a court making the order for
citizenship cessation. By contrast, there is a long history of legislation providing for
citizenship cessation by executive decision, following a conviction by a court (see, eg,
Nationality Act 1920 (Cth), s 12(2)(b) (Vol 3, Tab 14)); and by automatic operation of
law (see, eg, Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth), s 19 (Vol 3, Tab 15)). That
historical practice supports the line identified in Alexander at [96].
14. Third, certain matters to which the Minister must have regard under s 36D are not well
suited to judicial determination (let alone appropriate to be classified as matters
exclusively for judicial evaluation): see, eg, ss 36D(1)(c)-(d), 36E(2)(h).
15. Alternatively, this Court should recognise that, at least where a person has been convicted
and sentenced by a court for an offence within the narrow category of offences that engage
s 36D, imposition of citizenship cessation as a consequence of such offending otherwise
than by a Ch III court is permissible as an exception to the Lim principle.
https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/06-Melbourne/m90-2022/Benbrika-MHA_Res_OO...

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 1^st, 2023 at 4:46pm:



Well, that's what the High Court decision overturned.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 1^st, 2023 at 4:53pm:

Well, that he did (Dutton) and that is what was appealed.
The High Court now decided that the legislation that gave the power to the Minister is unconstitutional.

The silly asses (except for Stewart).

Black Orchid wrote on Nov 1^st, 2023 at 4:59pm:


G'day BO, great to see you.

I totally agree. We are becoming too soft in the west.

Here in the UAE, they lock you up, then deport you. That's it.

Then a ban to never to return.

This is the right thing to do. This nambie bambie soft "what about their rights" shite needs to stop.  society breaks down look after it.