A Supreme Court judge in Nauru has declared legislation passed earlier this month 'null and void'.

Justice Geof Muecke was ruling on a request from the group known as the "Nauru 19" who had requested government assistance with their legal costs.

Photo: supplied/ Shane Bazzi

The group is facing trial for alleged offences during an anti government protest more than three years ago.

Mr Muecke ruled the Nauru government pay $US166,606 dollars to the team of Australian lawyers who have been representing the Nauru group mostly pro bono since 2016.

He has given the government until this Friday to make the payment.

The judge has declared that the Civil Procedures Amendment 2018, passed earlier this month is unconstitutional.

He said the legislation, introduced and passed after he had been asked by the Nauru 19 to make the ruling, aimed to severely limit the opportunities for people facing criminal prosecution to obtain representation and funding.

The Act allowed for maximum legal fees payable per case to $US2,231.

He said the rule of law includes the fact that the community must respect all its individuals as good and law-abiding, unless the contrary is proved, and proved to a high standard. </s> The Federal Government has agreed to pay compensation of $70 million to 1,905 asylum seekers who alleged they endured physical and psychological harm on Manus Island between 2012 and 2016.

The group alleged the Commonwealth breached its duty of care by holding them in conditions that did not meet Australian standards.

During the period of their incarceration there was also a riot that resulted in the death of an asylum seeker and serious injuries to other detainees.

They also claimed they were falsely imprisoned after Papua New Guinea's Supreme Court ruled their detention was illegal.

A Victorian Supreme Court trial against the Commonwealth and security companies Transfield and G4S, which had been delayed for several months, was due to start today and had been expected to run for six months.

When it began, legal representatives for the plaintiff told the court it had reached an agreement to settle the case.

The in-principle agreement, subject to court approval, will include payment of plaintiffs' legal costs, which to date are more than $20 million.

Slater and Gordon lawyer Rory Walsh said the settlement agreement was not an admission of liability from the Government.

"It denied it was doing the false imprisoning ... the Commonwealth defence was that it was the PNG authorities doing the imprisoning and detaining and not them.

"The denial of liability allows the Commonwealth and the defendants to run those positions in any other cases and maintain that position, the extent to which this $70 million settlement undermines the ability for them to do that or whether indeed it passes the pub test, is a matter for others to comment upon.

"We just ran it as a legal case."

Lawyer Andrew Baker, also from Slater and Gordon, said if the settlement was approved, individual amounts of compensation would be decided based on the asylum seekers' experience.

"Individual settlement amounts will be calculated fairly, objectively and individually with regard to the length of each person's detention, the events and conditions they have experienced and been present for and the severity of injuries each person has suffered," he said.

"This settlement is an important step towards recognising the extremely hostile conditions the detainees endured at Manus Island.

"Fleeing religious persecution and violence and they came to Australia seeking protection but rather than considering their cases on shore, the Government sent this vulnerable group of people to be held on Manus Island indefinitely."

'We are finally being heard'

The class action was led by 35-year-old Iranian man Majid Karami Kamasaee, who was detained on Manus Island for 11 months from September 2013, and remains in a Melbourne detention centre.

Mr Kamasaee claimed he was persecuted by Iranian authorities for converting to Christianity, and that he had to flee the country under threat of being jailed for his religious beliefs.

He attempted to reach Australia by boat from Indonesia but it was intercepted by the Navy and he was transferred to the offshore processing centre.

In a statement read by lawyer Ebony Birchall, Mr Kamasaee said the settlement agreement meant he and his friends still in detention were "finally being heard".

"Sadly many of my friends are still on Manus Island. It feels like they have been given life sentences.

"Our voices have never been listened to but today we are finally being heard and I hope everyone's suffering can be over as quickly as possible."

Law firm Slater and Gordon, which ran the class action, believed it to have been the largest immigration detention trial ever in Australia. </s> Sydney - Detainees at an Australian asylum-seeker camp in Papua New Guinea won millions of dollars in compensation for “degrading and cruel” treatment Wednesday, in a decision hailed as an important human rights victory.

Abuse, self-harm and mental health problems are reportedly rife in offshore processing centres, with detainees resorting to desperate protests like sewing their own lips together to raise awareness of their plight. Wednesday’s AUS$70 million (US$53 million) conditional settlement, to be shared by 1,905 people who have been held on Manus Island since 2012, averted a public trial against the government and security providers Transfield and G4S.

A class action had sought damages for what claimants said was suffering due to the harsh conditions in which they were held. It also called for a payout for false imprisonment after the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court ruled last year that holding asylum-seekers on Manus Island was unconstitutional and illegal.

Law firm Slater and Gordon said they believed it was the largest human rights class action settlement in Australian history, with the defendants also agreeing to pay more than Aus$20 million in costs. “The people detained on Manus Island have endured extremely hostile conditions, but they will no longer suffer in silence,” said the firm’s Andrew Baker.

“While no amount of money could fully recognise the terrible conditions the detainees endured, we hope today’s settlement can begin to provide them with an opportunity to help put this dark chapter of their lives behind them.”

The Manus detention facility opened in 2012 to hold people trying to enter Australia by boat, under a tough immigration policy that sends them offshore to be processed.

They are blocked from resettling in Australia even if found to be refugees.

Conditions in the camp, and another one on Nauru in the Pacific, have been widely criticised by refugee advocates and medical professionals, with reports of maltreatment and neglect, leading to serious health problems.

Amnesty International called the decision “historic” and “a major crack in the Australian government’s crumbling system of abuse”.

“It must be a turning point towards a better solution for refugees - one that is grounded in protection, not abuse,” said Amnesty Pacific researcher Kate Schuetze.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said the payout was not an admission of liability, but to avoid a costly six-month trial.

“In such circumstances a settlement was considered a prudent outcome for Australian taxpayers,” he said in a statement.

“The Commonwealth strongly refutes and denies the claims made in these proceedings. Settlement is not an admission of liability in any regard.” Slater and Gordon lawyer Rory Walsh said the government and its contractor’s defence “was that it was the PNG authorities doing the imprisoning and detaining and not them”.

“The denial of liability allows the Commonwealth and the defendants to run those positions in any other cases and maintain that position,” he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Lead plaintiff Majid Kamasaee, an Iranian, welcomed the settlement as an overdue acknowledgement of the suffering he and others endured.

“This case is not just about me, it is about every person who has been trapped on Manus Island,” said Kamasaee, who was held there for 11 months “I left my home in Iran in 2013 because of religious persecution and I came to Australia seeking peace, but I was sent to Manus, which was hell.

“The way we were treated at the Manus Island detention centre was degrading and cruel.”

While the Manus camp needs to close following the PNG court decision, Dutton has made clear those housed there would not be moved to Australia but instead relocated to third countries such as the United States and Cambodia, or resettled in PNG. The government has not revealed any plans to shut down the Nauru facility. </s> A class action seeking damages for almost 2,000 men detained in an offshore processing centre on Manus Island has been settled.



The legal action by 1,905 men against the Immigration Department was scheduled to commence on Wednesday morning in the Victorian Supreme Court, but instead of a six month trial beginning, it was announced a settlement had been reached. Law firm Slater and Gordon, which brought the action, confirmed a $70m "conditional settlement" had been reached.

 The class action was brought on behalf of the men who were detained on the island from November 2012 to December 2014, against the Commonwealth of Australia and its contracted service providers G4S and Broadspectrum (formerly known as Transfield).

A refugee who was one of the plaintiffs told BuzzFeed News he could proudly say the Australian government "did something wrong" now. "Money can't bring back my four years I spent in hell," he said. "We didn't make this dangerous journey to get money or a luxury life, we just fled our home land to protect our life from danger. This injustice can not be undone with money to cover this awful history." Slater and Gordon said the result may represent the largest human rights class action settlement in Australian legal history.

 "No amount of money will be able to fully recognise the terrible conditions these detainees have had to endure, but with today's settlement, we hope they can be provided with an opportunity to put this dark chapter of their lives behind them," the firm's principal lawyer Andrew Baker told reporters on Wednesday.

"To date, Australian taxpayers have paid more than $13.7 billion to clean up Labor's loss of control of our borders," Dutton said in a statement on Wednesday. "Today another $90 million was added to that bill with the settlement of the Manus class action. "The settlement provides $70 million for the plaintiffs while No Win-No Fee law firm Slater and Gordon will pocket an estimated $20 million in costs." He said it was a "prudent outcome" for Australian taxpayers because the six month legal battle would have cost "tens of millions of dollars in legal fees alone". "Settlement is not an admission of liability in any regard." The lead plaintiff is Iranian refugee Majid Kamasaee, who fled his homeland due to religious persecution in 2010, and was detained at the centre for 11 months. “This case is not just about me, it is about every person who has been trapped on Manus Island,” Kamasaee said through a statement released by his lawyers. “I was in pain every minute of every day and I cried every night until I had nothing left.

The plaintiff alleged that detainees suffered serious physical and psychological injuries as a result of the conditions in which they were held on Manus Island in the period. During that time there were riots at the detention centre (February 2014) in which one detainee was killed and dozens were seriously injured.

 A second claim for false imprisonment was added to the action in 2016 after the PNG Supreme Court ruled that the detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island was unlawful and in breach of that nation's constitution. The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed or agreed upon by a judge. A settlement distribution scheme will be finalised in coming weeks and submitted to the Supreme Court of Victoria for approval. Lawyers from Slater and Gordon will visit Manus Island to explain the details to detainees in person. Figures obtained under a Freedom of Information request lodged by the Australian Lawyer's Alliance revealed that from 1999 to 2011, the Immigration Department paid $23.4 million in compensation to detainees in Australian-run immigration detention centres. </s> Lionel Aingimea wins a parliamentary vote for the presidency 12-6 over rival David Adeang, the Nauru government information office says

NEW PRESIDENT. Lionel Aingimea, former assistant law minister for the country of Nauru. Photo from Flickr by Commonwealth Secretariat

WELLINGTON, New Zealand – A former human rights lawyer was elected Nauru's new president Tuesday, following calls for widespread reform in the tiny Pacific nation which Australia uses as a detention centre for asylum seekers.

Lionel Aingimea won a parliamentary vote for the presidency 12-6 over rival David Adeang, the Nauru government information office said.

It comes in the wake of a general election last weekend that saw more than half of Nauru's 19 lawmakers swept from office, including two-term president Baron Waqa.

Adeang had been considered favourite to take the top job from Waqa, a strong supporter of Australia's hardline refugee policy.

Australia's Lowy Institute think tank last year said the country of 11,000 "lurched towards authoritarianism" under Waqa's leadership.

His government made it difficult for international media to visit Nauru to report on conditions facing asylum seekers and pursued domestic political opponents through the courts, accusing them of rioting during a 2015 protest outside parliament.

Speaking before Aingimea's election to the presidency, opposition figure Mathew Batsiua said the general election was "a decisive win for change".

"Clearly people have had enough of ... a government that's been cracking down on the rights and freedoms of people," he told Radio New Zealand.

"People want a government that's more fair and that doesn't leave people behind."

Whether Aingimea will prove a reformist is unclear.

The Australian-trained lawyer previously worked as a senior trainer with the Regional Rights Resource Team, a Fiji-based body aimed at promoting human rights in the Pacific.

However, Aingimea subsequently worked in the Waqa administration, first as a senior public servant, then as an assistant minister for justice and border control.

Australia's policy of processing asylum seekers on Nauru – and the equally remote Manus island in Papua New Guinea – has proved an economic lifeline for a country which exhausted its previous source of wealth: phosphate deposits used as fertiliser.

Nauru's government revenues ballooned from Aus$20 million (US$13 million) in 2010-11 to Aus$115 million (US$77 million) in 2015-16 largely due to fees paid by Canberra linked to the asylum policy, official Australian data shows.

Refugee advocates estimate around 300 refugees remain on the island, down from a peak of about 1,200 in 2014.

Rights groups and the United Nations have consistently criticised the conditions faced by refugees, warning indefinite detention causes mental health problems and suicide attempts. – Rappler.com </s> Detainees at a controversial Australian asylum-seeker camp in Papua New Guinea won Aus$70 million ($53 million) in compensation on Wednesday after alleging they suffered physical and psychological harm.

The settlement, to be shared by 1,905 people held on Manus Island since 2012, averted a public trial against the government and security providers Transfield and G4S.

A class action sought damages for alleged suffering due to harsh conditions in which detainees were held.

It also called for a payout for false imprisonment after the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court ruled last year that holding asylum-seekers on Manus Island was unconstitutional and illegal.

Lawyers Slater and Gordon said they believed it was the largest human rights class action settlement in Australian history, with the defendants also agreeing to pay costs of more than Aus$20 million.a

"The people detained on Manus Island have endured extremely hostile conditions, but they will no longer suffer in silence," said Andrew Baker, from the law firm.

"While no amount of money could fully recognise the terrible conditions the detainees endured, we hope today´s settlement can begin to provide them with an opportunity to help put this dark chapter of their lives behind them."

The Manus facility opened in 2012 to detain people trying to enter Australia by boat under a tough immigration policy that sends them offshore to be processed.

They are blocked from resettling in Australia even if found to be refugees.

Conditions in the camp, and another one on Nauru in the Pacific, have been widely criticised by refugee advocates and medical professionals, with reports of widespread abuse, self-harm and mental health issues.

Lead plaintiff Majid Kamasaee, an Iranian, welcomed the settlement as an overdue acknowledgement of the suffering he and others endured.

"This case is not just about me, it is about every person who has been trapped on Manus Island," said Kamasaee, who was held there for 11 months

"I left my home in Iran in 2013 because of religious persecution and I came to Australia seeking peace, but I was sent to Manus, which was hell.

"The way we were treated at the Manus Island detention centre was degrading and cruel."

The government had no immediate response but Slater and Gordon lawyer Rory Walsh told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation the agreement was not an admission of liability from Canberra.

"It denied it was doing the false imprisoning... the Commonwealth defence was that it was the PNG authorities doing the imprisoning and detaining and not them," he said.

"The denial of liability allows the Commonwealth and the defendants to run those positions in any other cases and maintain that position." </s> Manus Island detainees will receive AUS$70million (NZD$73m) in the settlement of a class action against the Australian government.

Lawyers for the detainees have reached a conditional settlement with the Australian Government and the operators of the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre.

Slater and Gordon principal lawyer Andrew Baker said the case had been settled for AUS$70m plus costs.

The class action was seeking damages on behalf of 1905 group members who, legal firm Slater and Gordon says, cover the majority of people detained on Manus Island since 2012.

The detainees wanted compensation from the Australian Government and the detention centre managers for alleged physical and psychological injuries they argue they suffered as a result of the conditions in which they were held.

Slater and Gordon Principal Lawyer Andrew Baker said in a statement most of the detainees were fleeing persecution and violence, but endured alleged "terrible conditions" on Manus Island.

The statement also said it was thought to be the largest human rights class action taken in Australian legal history.

The class action also sought damages for false imprisonment after the PNG Supreme Court ruled the detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island was unconstitutional.

The Australian Government and the companies that have managed the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre, G4S Australia and Broadspectrum (formerly Transfield Services), had denied the claims.

The settlement could potentially lead to the withdrawal of a separate legal action in Papua New Guinea alleging false imprisonment against the PNG government, which lawyers estimated could be worth at least AUS$150m for about 1000 detainees.

Lawyers Greg Toop and Ben Lomai have estimated the men in the PNG case could each receive more than 400,000 PNG kina (AUS$150,000-$175,000).

The settlement details in the Australian class action will be confidential and subject to court approval.

Slater and Gordon had said the Australian class action would shine a light on the conditions the detainees experienced on Manus Island. </s> WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Friday that the Justice Department will ask the Supreme Court to block a judge's ruling that prevented President Donald Trump's travel ban from being applied to grandparents of U.S. citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies.

Sessions said in a statement that the administration would "reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court" in a bid to overturn Thursday's decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration's temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries. The Justice Department could file papers with the high court as soon as Friday.

"By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the executive branch in a time of grave threats, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the executive branch and the directive of the Supreme Court," Sessions Said.

The Supreme Court last month said the ban could take effect, but that people with a "bona fide relationship" to a U.S. person or entity could not be barred.

The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted.

"The truth here is that the government´s interpretation of the Supreme Court´s stay order defies common sense," said Omar Jadwat, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union involved in challenging the ban. "That´s what the district court correctly found, and the attorney general´s misleading attacks on its decision can´t change that fact."

The conservative-leaning Supreme Court is not currently in session, but the justices can handle emergency requests. The administration's application could be directed either to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has responsibility for emergency requests from western states, or to the nine justices as a whole. If the court as a whole is asked to weigh in, five votes are needed to grant such a request.

Separately, the Justice Department filed papers in Hawaii federal court saying it would appeal Watson's ruling to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That would give the government a second route to the Supreme Court.

Earlier on Friday, White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert told reporters that the ruling appeared to be "fairly broad and something that would trouble me if it was as broad as reported."

Bossert, speaking aboard Air Force One as the president returned from a trip to Paris, focused his remarks on the part of the ruling that would allow more refugees to enter the country, saying the ruling could be interpreted as "so expansive as to cover every refugee."

In his decision, Watson harshly criticized the government's definition of close family relations as "the antithesis of common sense."

Watson also ruled that the assurance by a resettlement agency to provide basic services to a newly arrived refugee constitutes an adequate connection to the United States because it is a sufficiently formal and documented agreement that triggers responsibilities and compensation.

The ruling, if left in place, means refugees can continue to be resettled in the United States, beyond a cap of 50,000 set by the executive order. That limit was reached this week.

The Supreme Court's decision last month revived parts of Trump's March 6 executive order banning travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as refugees for 120 days. The court also agreed to hear oral arguments in the fall over whether the ban violates the U.S. Constitution. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe, Yeganeh Torbati and Dan Levine; Editing by Jonathan Oatis) </s> HONOLULU (CN) — The state of Hawaii is again urging a federal judge to clarify his block of President Trump’s travel ban.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in March stalled enforcement of the travel ban – which restricted immigration from six Muslim-majority nations – but he declined to clarify his ruling last week. He said that the matter turned on the Supreme Court’s use of the term “close family” in a preliminary ruling two weeks ago to determine who should be eligible to enter the country now that the high court has issued a temporary stay on enforcing certain portions of the travel ban block.

Upon appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Judge Watson may indeed enforce or modify his own injunction.

Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg disagreed, arguing in court documents filed in the District of Hawaii Tuesday that the court lacks enforcement or modification authority. Rosenberg also elaborated on the Trump administration’s definition of “close family,” leaning on a formulation in the Immigration and Nationality Act that focuses on the children, spouses and parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin responded in a brief filed Wednesday that Hawaii is only following the “precise roadmap” laid out by the Ninth Circuit, while “the government tries every possible avenue” to defy the Supreme Court’s directive that anyone with a “bona fide relationship” to this country cannot be denied entry.

Chin continued, “The Government has spent two weeks carrying out its unconstitutional order against the vulnerable and the weak.” Chin’s brief cites a Ukrainian granddaughter attempting to reunite with her 93-year-old grandmother, a refugee stranded in Malawi while his uncle waits for him here, and “countless individuals” promised resettlement by a dedicated refugee organization.

Rosenberg countered that an assurance from a refugee resettlement agency does not constitute a bona fide relationship and that resettlement is contingent upon a contract between the agency and the government. According to Rosenberg, Hawaii’s “blanket approach” to admitting refugees would eviscerate the Supreme Court’s stay.

Rosenberg may be conflating the portion of Watson’s injunction that protects refugees, which the Supreme Court left intact, with the injunction against the 120-day ban on immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries, which the Supreme Court overturned.

Rosenberg continued, “Plaintiffs would have the court modify its injunction by adding requirements that, at best, appear nowhere in the Supreme Court’s opinion.”

Chin accused the government of manufacturing ad hoc rules, including its “newly minted rationalization” relying on immigration laws to establish a strict definition of “family.”

Such guidelines, Chin said, would preclude plaintiff Ismael Elshikh’s mother-in-law from coming into the country, for example, even though the Supreme Court ruling granted her protection. “It defies credulity that this is what the Supreme Court had in mind when it mentioned Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law,” Chin wrote.
A judge in Nauru declares the Civil Procedures Amendment 2018 unconstitutional and strikes it down. The act restricted the ability of those facing prosecution to obtain legal representation. The court orders Nauru's government to pay Australian lawyers acting for those who brought the legal challenge.