Civil Case no.

9 of 2014
Rodney Henshaw
Plaintiff
AND
Minister for Justice, Republic of Nauru & Or.s
Defendants
29 Januray 2014.
The Plaintiff has today filed:
1. Writ of Summons;
2. Exparte Application for Injunction;
3. An affidavit in support sworn on this day by Mr. V. Clodumar, the Plaintiffs pleader;
4. A single page Notice of Motion;
Mr. Clodumar and Mr. J. Williams of counsel (NSW) appeared before me in chambers just now
(approx. 1:30pm) to move the application for injunction on an urgent basis. The Court is informed
that the Plaintiff is anticipated to be deported on a flight departing this afternoon at 2:30.
Application for Injunction
1. The Court is informed from the Plaintiffs legal representatives that a removal order was
made on 29 January 2014 and served on the Plaintiff, an Australian citizen and that the
Plaintiff is at the Airport awaiting removal from Nauru to Brisbane, Australia.
2. S. 11 of the Immigration Act 2014, permits a removal order against a" non-citizen of Nauru.
3. 55.13(1) provides for an appeal against a removal order under s.11 to the President. The
Court is informed from the Plaintiff's legal representatives that an appeal to the President
has been duly made.
4. 5.13(3) provides for a permit to remain in Nauru to be granted to a party who has filed an
Appeal under 5.13(3).
S. 5.13(6) provides that there shall be no right of review in respectofthe decision or act or
omission of the President or the delegated person under 5.13.
6. S. 13 makes it abundantly clear that it was the intention of Parliament to exclude any judicial
---------revie'lk:lr-legal-priri:eedings ill respect oftmS"rni'itler. Tfle'jlirrsillilion of the fu'rtin
of this matter has been ousted by Parliament with filii ,effect that his Court has
no such jurisdiction.
/
7. The power of the Republic of Nauru to exclude a personwho is not a citizen of Nauru is
expressly reserved by Article 51(h) of the Constitution of Nauru. The width of this power in
respect of non-citizens of Nauru has been upheld (see; AG v Secretary for Justice; Civil Suit
14 of 2013 at 6 and the citation (by comity) of Chu Kheng lim V Minister for Immigration
(1992) 176 CLR 1). Non-citizens enter and remain in Nauru at the pleasure of their host and
on such conditions as their host sees fit to impose, as reflected in the laws of Nauru from
time to time. The Legislature has determined that the subject poWer to remove a non-
citizen should be exercised by a Minister and ultimately the President without recourse to
this Court.
8. I considerthat here is no prima facie case to be tried because this Court does not have
jurisdiction to review the removal order.
9. Balance of Convenience would require weighing the interests of a non-citizen to remain in
Nauru against the power of a sovereign State to control the presence of aliens within its
sovereign territory and the public interest. It is not necessary to determine where the
balance of convenience lies tqday for the reasons above stated.
29 January 2014
Registrar,
Supreme Co
---===-------
~
~ ~ c