The case of SIEV 60 involved the smuggling of 67 migrants to Australia. The vessel was intercepted on 1 October 2009 north-northwest of Browse Island. There is no record of any prosecution relating to the arrival of this vessel.
Two Sri Lankan passengers on board the vessel appealed their refusal of refugee status to the High Court in a high profile case. The High Court held that the Refugee Review Tribunal had failed to observe requirements of procedural fairness in assessing the claims of the two smuggled migrants.
It was not known at time of writing whether the smugglers received a material or financial benefit.
There is no record of any prosecution relating to the arrival of this vessel.
Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia; Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 41 (11 November 2010)
This entry was copied from The Migrant Smuggling Case Database, launched by the University of Queensland Migrant Smuggling Working Group in August 2013.
Two of the Sri Lankan migrants who arrived on SIEV 60 brought proceedings against the Commonwealth after their applications for refugee status were refused by Independent Merits Reviews. The two migrants argued that they had been denied procedural fairness due to the failure of the tribunal to regard themselves as bound by the Migration Act and court decisions. The Commonwealth argued that the decisions were made as an exercise of non-statutory executive power, and that there was consequently no requirement to take procedural fairness into account in making the decisions. The arguments of the plaintiffs were heard jointly in the decision M61/M69 v Commonwealth of Australia.
The High Court unanimously held that assessment and review inquiries as to Australia's protection obligations to off-shore entry persons were taken under, and for the purposes of, the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Furthermore, because the inquiries prolonged the detention of the plaintiffs, there was a direct impact on their rights and freedoms by the executive. The High Court held that the plaintiffs had, for these reasons, been denied procedural fairness.