Asylum seekers trapped at sea by Australian dispute

A woman protests Australian immigration policy

Sri Lankans remain in Australian custody while a court prepares to decide their fate

LAST UPDATED AT 13:34 ON Tue 8 Jul 2014

The Australian government has conceded that it will give at least 72 hours warning if it plans to return a group of asylum seekers to Sri Lanka, in a case which has attracted worldwide attention, the BBC reports.

The promise was given at an emergency High Court hearing that will determine the fate of 153 Sri Lankan asylum seekers who were intercepted by border patrol officers on a ship in the Indian Ocean.

"Our goal for today was to make sure the 153 asylum seekers are safe, and for now we have achieved this temporarily," George Newhouse, the lawyer who brought the legal challenge told Channel 4 news.

The case has been adjourned until Friday and the Australian government has confirmed that the group of asylum seekers, which includes women and children, will remain in custody at sea until a verdict is reached.

This decision comes a day after another vessel was intercepted by Australian border forces, and the 41 asylum seekers on board were handed over to Sri Lankan authorities after a brief series of questions. Lawyers described the actions as "a clear violation of international law".

Tony Abbott, the Australian prime minister, "says his policy is about saving lives by preventing people getting on potentially dangerous boats to travel to Australia", the BBC reports

The Tamil Refugee Council of Australia issued a statement from a relative of one of the children on the second boat.

"I want to plead with the Australian minister to stop our pain and let us know what he has done with all the kids and families on the boat," he said through a translator. "I ask him to be kind to these people.

"They are all very frightened. They cannot be sent back to Sri Lanka. Many of them will be tortured again and even killed."

Australia admits returning 41 asylum seekers to Sri Lanka

7 July

Australia's immigration minister Scott Morrison has confirmed that 41 asylum seekers have been returned to Sri Lanka, in a move which has fuelled criticism of Australia's hard-line immigration policy.

He refused to comment on the fate of those aboard a second boat reportedly carrying a further 153 asylum seekers, saying only that it was no longer in Australian waters, the BBC reports.

Australian border patrol officials intercepted the boat carrying the 41 asylum seekers near the Cocos Islands last week. Today a temporary injunction has been issued by the  Australian High Court, blocking the government from returning those aboard the second vessel to Sri Lanka, [1] ABC news reports.  

Lawyers argue that "the asylum seekers are entitled to have their allegations – claims against the Sri Lankan government – heard and processed in accordance with the law." The matter will be heard in full by the High Court on Tuesday afternoon.

Human rights campaigners say the return of the asylum seekers on the first boat was "in violation of international law".

The UN refugee agency UNHCR has expressed "profound concern" at Australia's actions, saying "international law prescribes that no individual can be returned involuntarily to a country in which he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution."

Morrison claimed that everyone on board was subjected to an "enhanced screening process" before being returned to the authorities at the Sri Lankan port of Batticaloa.

However, Australia's shadow minister for immigration Richard Marles questioned how a credible processing system could have been conducted by "video link at sea in a way which gave an individual assessment, when all the time the boat was steaming towards Sri Lanka," according to the BBC.

The UN called the screening process "unfair an unreliable" as the those onboard were only asked four questions in order to establish their eligibility to claim asylum, The Guardian reports.

Human rights groups claim they have documented evidence of returned asylum seekers facing torture, rape and other violence at the hands of the Sri Lankan military.

The Sri Lankan authorities have confirmed that the 41 asylum seekers will be handed over to the police for "clarification" purposes and could face charges.

A group of 53 Australian international law experts have signed a statement condemning the actions, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.

"These people [were] held on the high seas, without being allowed to contact lawyers, challenge their detention in court or speak with family and friends," said Ben Saul, a law professor at Sydney University, who signed the statement. · 

Disqus - noscript

Sad, but we need to make sure those new comers accept and respect the law of the land first. How can you be sure of that. Dilemma.

...at least Australia is not shackled by the ludicrous "open borders" policy of the EU - neither have the hand-wringing, bleeding hearts human rights activists yet been attacked by immigrant criminals or extremists. Until such time, they may bask in their own smug assumptions that they are, somehow, morally superior to the pragmatists who are actually entrusted with, and responsible for, the security of Australian citizens.

they never even got processed properly or fairly ! just immediately sent back to where they came from. surely this is a violation of the refugee convention....shame on the Australian government.

No surprise,Australia is an incredibly racist country,I've got several Australian friends and some of the comments thay make without realising are quite horrendous.

If Sri Lanka is not safe then why is there no travel ban in place? Guidelines are to "exercise caution" not "reconsider travel" or "do not travel".

Source: Australian Government Dept. Foreign Affairs and Trade

Why would not a Sri Lankan asylum seeker seek refuge in India?

The "53 international law experts" can be relied upon to be the same scumbag immigration and asylum lawyers who thrive on Legal Aid to line their pockets when they tell the usual lies of "refugees" being at risk of torture etc. if deported.

Any democracy must control who comes to its soil for permanent residency, otherwise the natives are outvoted by the newcomers. This is hardly a controversial observation, and has nothing to do with racism - Australia is not eagerly importing Caucasian poor, uneducated, lowest cognitive quartile people from Europe or anywhere else. Why they should do so from Sri Lanka has not been explained. The Sri Lankans are not in danger of being murdered if they return -- just in danger of living in Sri Lanka, which is not as nice as Australia but is hardly Auschwitz. If you think Australia should fund these migrants, perhaps you should be first in line to give up YOUR vote and YOUR money. Somehow, that never seems to be the case. Rather, there is a hope by the pro-migrant group that the newcomers will indeed change the voting and the culture. Not very persuasive.

The Australians of whom you speak are the immigrants in Australia. The aborigines did not give them the right to settle their country... so please explain your comment

...yes - of course you are right - "ab origine" literally, "from the beginning" (L).

However, to comment on Australia's modern approach to the problem is the point of this debate - the treatment of the "native Australians" is, indeed, a shameful episode in Britain's colonial history - to hunt them for sport, like game animals, beggars belief by modern standards.

However, except, perhaps, to a bleeding heart, hand-wringing, human-rights obsessed idealist, the past is irrelevant to the very necessary measures that are now in place to protect the citizens of modern Australia - whether you like it or not. - and it is those MODERN standards, in the face of TODAY's security threats, that are the governing factor in Australia's very sensible attitude to illegal immigrants.

For further concise, balanced comment and analysis on the week's news, try The Week magazine. Subscribe today and get 6 issues completely free.

Read more about