The decision in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 273 is just an example of political correctness gone wild. It cannot be implemented in any practical way. Critically evaluate.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) was ratified by Australia on 16 January 1991 but has not yet been it has not been incorporated into Australia's domestic law by statute. By ratifying this international human rights treaty Australia has taken on the obligation to ensure that everyone under its jurisdiction enjoys the rights set out in those treaties . International and domestic law historically have been treated as separate. The High Court decision in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 185 273 (Teoh) saw the incorporation of this international treaty rights by judges, within the common law system. This has been the cause of much controversy and in the following I will outline the facts and associated issues surrounding the case.
Facts of the case
Mr Teoh, a Malay citizen, had temporary residency in Australia. He married an Australian and the couple had three children in addition to four children from Mrs Teoh's previous relationships. Mr Teoh was convicted of drug offences and his application for permanent residence in Australia was refused. He was not considered to be of good character as a heroin dealer. An Immigration Review Panel considered the impact on the family but regarded the compassionate grounds an insufficient reason to overturn the decision. An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court overturned a previous adverse decision basing its decision on Australia's obligations under Article 3 of United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child (UNCROC). It was held that there was a 'legitimate expectation' in parents and children that...