Student Law Review Issue 1 | Page 33

convicted of drug offences and his application for a permanent entry permit was refused on grounds that he failed the criminal and character evaluation under the Australian Migration Act 1958. He applied to the Immigration Review Panel for a review and the Panel denied his application. The minister accepted the decision and ordered deportation. Teoh petitioned to the Federal court on the grounds that the delegate failed to comply with procedural fairness and that the execution of their power was done improperly. The court dismissed the application. On appeal, the full bench of the Federal Court (Black CJ, Lee and Carr JJ) overruled the previous decision and held that there was improper use of power because the panel failed to do the necessary investigations into the hardship of his wife and children. An order for stay of deportation was given until reconsideration was done in light of the court’s finding. The immigration minister then appealed to the High Court of Australia. The majority (Mason CJ, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ) upheld the decision that there had been a breach of natural justice, because the Immigration department had failed to invite Teoh to make a submission on whether a deportation order should be made, contrary to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 3.1, which provided that in any administrative decision concerning a child, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration. The courts also focused Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, Articles 3 and 9, which also support the that the child’s benefits should be taken into consideration and that a child should not be deprived of a parent. They held that even though these conventions were unincorporated it still presented grounds whereby parents and children were afforded a legitimate expectation that such actions would be conducted in conformity with the principles of the convention. The courts in A.G v Joseph and Boyce similar to Teoh interpreted unincorporated international instruments into its judgement. Joseph and Boyce were jointly convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a young man. Their appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Barbados Privy Council were dismissed. The death warrants were read to Joseph and Boyce, who subsequently disputed that their constitutional rights were being infringed on, because, their petition to American Convention of Human Rights (ACHR) was still pending. The respondents argued that according to Article 4(6) of the ACHR every person condemned to death shall have the right to apply for amnesty, pardon, or commutation of sentence, which may be granted in all cases. They 29