Uncharged Asylum Seeker Whilst In Prison example essay topic

In recent months, allegations of abuse, ill treatment and mismanagement, as well as hunger strikes, suicide attempts and breakouts have all served to reveal the cracks in Australia's harsh and disciplinary system of detaining asylum-seekers. Our system is in crisis. Urgently, we must find a reasonable and safe solution to the treatment of asylum seekers who arrive on our shores. For many people fleeing torture or death, it is impossible to obtain the necessary travel documents. It can be too dangerous for them, there may be no office at which to apply, or they may be unaware that they need to seek permission to flee for their lives. When asylum seekers who are unable to safely obtain travel documents arrive in Australia, such as the 14 Afghanistan refugees that were picked up by the Tampa, (Under obligations of the 'Law of the Sea') the Tampa rescued a boatload of people in international waters.

Under humanitarian law the Tampa must be allowed to drop off those people who were rescued. Given that the boat was within sight of an Australian territory and that the Australian government has ratified both the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1951 Refugee Convention. Australia was therefor under obligation to accept these refugees, and they should be treated with the dignity and respect as any other Australian citizen, not as a hardened criminal. They should have been given access to a fair asylum procedure - a fundamental principal of international law.

Instead, They are placed behind razor sharp wire and are treated no better than common prisoners. In reality; there is no difference between Woomera detention centre and Cuba jail. They are given no right to appeal to a court of law against the decision to detain them indefinitely. Detainees can be held for up to three or more years while waiting to be processed, But Australia is the only country in the Western world that detains asylum seekers as a matter of course, most other countries establish asylum seekers in the community after a short period of detention for health and security checks, and only detain those considered to be a 'legitimate security risk'. In fact, in some countries detention for more than 10 days is considered illegal, this is certainly not the case in Australia. The Australian government justifies detainment on the grounds of deterring others from similarly seeking asylum.

While it is internationally accepted that protecting national security can be a legitimate reason for the temporary detention of asylum seekers, deterrence alone is unacceptable. The detention of people who flee serious human rights violations is unnecessarily harsh, and subjects people who have a legitimate fear of persecution and further trauma. Australia has an obligation to ensure the protection of the special needs of children under, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since 1992, immediate detention has been mandatory for all unauthorised arrivals, including children, who seek asylum. The Refugee Review Tribunal is an independent merits review tribunal. It's main function is to review decisions made by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) to refuse or cancel protection visas to non-citizens in Australia.

A criterion for the grant of a protection visa is the person is a non-citizen in Australia to whom Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugees Convention) as amended by the 1967 UN Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Protocol). The operations of the Tribunal are governed by the Act and Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). In conducting a review of a decision to refuse or cancel a protection visa, the Tribunal looks at the issues and evidence afresh. It considers material relating to the protection visa application, including the DIMIA's file, any further submissions from the applicant and information from other sources available to the Tribunal.

It decides whether the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations, which includes consideration of whether they, or a member of their family, is a refugee within the meaning of the Convention. The Tribunal has the power to affirm the DIMIA's decision, vary the decision, set the decision aside and substitute a new decision, or remit the matter to DIMIA for reconsideration. The Tribunal has an obligation to provide a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. Unlike a court, the tribunal is not adversarial. DIMIA is not usually represented at Tribunal hearings. The Tribunal is inquisitorial in nature and can obtain whatever information it considers necessary to conduct the review.

It is not bound by technicalities, legal forms or the rules of evidence but must act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case. With all this taken in to consideration it would be assumed that the operation of Australia's legal system is that of an unbiased, quick, effective and as least stressful as possible for the asylum seekers / refugee. Once again this is certainly not the case, according to the Australian Government immigration statistics, more than 53% of applications were 'set aside'. Amnesty International (AI) is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognised human rights.

They have a particular interest in the human and international rights of refugees and asylum seekers and fight to represent these people. Amnesty International welcomed the tabling of a report in Federal parliament outing how Australia had breached its human rights obligations by transferring a number of uncharged asylum seekers directly to prison. The findings by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) were tabled by the Attorney General. The report found that the practice had amounted to arbitrary detention in a number of cases and that the Australian government had failed to treat people deprived of their liberty with humanity and respect. The report also found that often the Department of Immigration had failed to follow its own guidelines, including a failure to monitor an uncharged asylum seeker whilst in prison. State governments have given an undertaking not to accept uncharged asylum into their facilities except under "exceptional circumstances".

However, Amnesty International supports the recommendation by HREOC that legislation should be introduced by the Federal government to ensure that only those charged with an offence are transferred to prisons. I feel that the Australian legal system, in relation to the treatment and detainment of refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants could be improved to a standard of government which treats these people with common dignity and the respect of any other Australian citizen, not an international criminal. These refugees are fleeing a world of pain, terror and extreme fear and they deserve the right to be given access to a fair asylum procedure - a fundamental principle of international law.