TIME Australia

Australian Court Rules That Offshore Detention of Refugees Is Legal

Protesters occupy Australian PM Turnbull's electoral office demanding end to policy of offshore detention in Sydney suburb of Edgecliff, Australia
David Gray—Reuters A group of protesters occupy Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's electoral office, demanding the end to the policy of offshore detention of asylum seekers, in Sydney on Oct. 14, 2015

The court ruled that conditions at the offshore sites do not violate Australia's constitution

Australia’s High Court upheld the country’s controversial policy of detaining asylum seekers in offshore processing centers Wednesday, dismissing a claim that the conditions under which they are being held on the island of Nauru violates the Australian constitution.

The case was brought by an anonymous Bangladeshi woman temporarily relocated from Nauru to Australia for medical treatment, the BBC reports.

The court’s ruling means that over 250 asylum seekers, including around 50 children and nearly 40 infants born in Australia, will be deported to the island nation in the coming days, despite allegations by rights groups that the centers are not safe.

Nationwide protests against the ruling have reportedly been planned.

The Australian government’s treatment of refugees arriving at its shores, who are promptly transported to Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus island, where reports of human-rights violations abound, has long been a subject of intense controversy.

Read more: Australia Will Keep Detaining Refugees Indefinitely, Whatever the World Thinks

Detainees at the two island centers are reportedly subjected to widespread violence and abuse, with the most recent public outrage involving the case of a 5-year-old boy who was allegedly raped on Nauru and will now likely be sent back.

“That is this huge cloud hanging over him,” Dr. Karen Zwi, a pediatrician who examined the boy, told broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corp (ABC). “That he will be returned to an absolutely traumatic and devastating environment for him.”

Zwi mentioned that the young boy had started wetting the bed and even began to self-harm, a phenomenon she reports seeing in several distressed children.

Australia’s Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said he would take medical advice on the 5-year-old’s case into consideration. Meanwhile, rights groups attacked the government’s hasty amendment to a funding-related law — closing a loophole that enabled it to defeat the court challenge — in June last year.

Daniel Webb of the Human Rights Law Centre told ABC that the government “shifted the goalposts” by changing the law while the case was ongoing.

“They won in the High Court, but let me tell you, around the country right now there are 267 incredibly vulnerable people who will be terrified.”

A visceral fear at the prospect of going back to Nauru is the predominant reaction of most asylum seekers temporarily moved to mainland Australia, with a Sri Lankan woman who was also allegedly sexually assaulted on the island telling the Guardian‘s Australia edition ahead of the court ruling, that she was “too scared” to return.

“If I am sent back to Nauru, I will commit suicide,” she said.

Tap to read full story

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com


YOU BROKE TIME.COM!

Dear TIME Readers,

As a regular visitor to TIME.com, we are sure you enjoy all the great journalism created by our editors and reporters. Great journalism has great value, and it costs money to make it. One of the main ways we cover our costs is through advertising.

The use of software that blocks ads limits our ability to provide you with the journalism you enjoy. Consider turning your Ad Blocker off so that we can continue to provide the world class journalism you have become accustomed to.

The TIME Team