The Invisible Constitution in Comparative Perspective

University of Queensland Law Journal 265.

---

348 

Rosalind Dixon and Gabrielle Appleby

the orders be issued ex parte.

13

 The Court dismissed the challenge to the par-

ticular regime, which has led to the spread and adaptation of the control order 

regime in the states to target members of organised crime gangs.

The  Boilermakers’ principle has also been at the heart of constitutional 

disputes over the legality of executive detention, particularly immigration 

detention. In Chu Kheng Lim v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government 

and Ethnic Affairs, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ accepted that ‘the invol-

untary detention of a citizen in custody by the state is penal or punitive in 

character and, under our system of government, exists only as an incident of 

the exclusively judicial function of adjudging and punishing criminal guilt’.

14

 

However, the Court accepted that executive detention for non-punitive pur-

poses, such as the processing and deportation of immigrants pursuant to the  

aliens’ power, would not fall foul of this norm. Justice Gummow explained in 

Kruger v. Commonwealth that non-judicial detention would infringe Chapter III  

of the Constitution where it was in substance punitive, to be determined by 

reference to whether the detention is ‘reasonably capable of being seen as nec-

essary for a legitimate non-punitive purpose’.

15

 However, in Kruger, the Court 

dismissed a challenge to the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 (NT), which author-

ised the involuntary removal and detention of Indigenous children from their 

families, on the basis that – however misguided – the policy was implemented 

for non-punitive, welfare and protection purposes.

The Court has also subsequently rejected a number of challenges to immi-

gration detention, accepting as constitutionally permissible the potentially 

indefinite detention of stateless individuals,

16

 the detention of children,

17

 and 

irrelevancy of the conditions to the constitutionality of detention.

18

 Thus, 

while the Boilermakers’ principle may appear to have great possibility for 

rights protection in this area, it has proven weak in doing so in practice.

The Court, over time, has also recognised a related implication protecting 

the institutional integrity and independence of state courts: the Kable princi-

ple.

19

 The Kable principle emerged in the case of Kable v. DPP (NSW) as a  

13 

Thomas v. Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307.

14 

(1992) 176 CLR 1, 27.

15 

(1997) 190 CLR 1, 161. While the relevance proportionality of detention to the non-punitive 

purpose was doubted, it has more recently been affirmed in Plaintiff S4-2014 v. Minister  

for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 253 219, 231 [26], 232 [29] (French CJ, Hayne, 

Crennan, Kiefel and Keane JJ).

16 

Al-Kateb v. Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562.

17 

Re Woolley; Ex parte Applicants M276/2000 (2004) 225 CLR 1.

18 

Behrooz v. Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous  

Affairs (2004) 219 CLR 486.

19 

Street v. Queensland Bar Association (1989) 168 CLR 461, 521 (Deane J).

---