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