Almost a quarter of a century after Danyal Shafiq fled Bangladesh to seek safety in Australia, and six months after he died, the battle to seek justice for him has entered its final stage.
Shafiq was raised in an orphanage and unwittingly drafted to work for armed revolutionaries when he was 15, according to statements given to the United Nations human rights committee.
When he realised his job included smuggling arms and drugs he wanted to leave the “violent and subversive” gang, but was told if he did he would be killed. In the end he left Bangladesh, and arrived in Australia by boat in 1999, where he was detained.
In the report, Shafiq was described as “effectively a stateless person” because Bangladesh denied he was a citizen. The Australian authorities denied him a protection visa.
In detention, his mental health began to suffer and he ended up in a psychiatric hospital.
In 2007, after more than seven years in detention – a record at the time – then immigration minister, Kevin Andrews, granted him a removal pending bridging visa – meaning he was released but under constant threat of deportation.
Shafiq said at the time that he would “learn again how to cope, how to do normal things”.
He said he was still afraid he would be deported.
“My agony is still there because it’s a good outcome after a long time, but I’m afraid to say I’m happy, I’m afraid to say I’m not happy because I don’t have any feelings, my feelings is numb,” he told the ABC.
Mentally ill and suffering diabetes, which his lawyers argue was due to his treatment in detention and the prescription of a medication known to cause the disease, he eventually sought compensation.
But the matter has now dragged on in the courts for years, and last year, Shafiq died. Now, both sides are trying to finalise the case but have not agreed on how to do that.
In the Adelaide district court on Monday, Shafiq’s lawyer said he had died intestate, and was “a man of no assets at all”.
Tony Kerin, acting for Shafiq via a litigation guardian, called on the court to exercise its discretion to discontinue proceedings, to “dispose of the matter … once and for all”, and that any matter of who would pay costs would be irrelevant.
“Any order as to costs would be of a nullity and of no utility, Mr Shafiq dies a man of no assets at all,” he said.
“There probably would not be a legal basis for an order of costs in any event, given that he died of what we say were conditions imposed on him while in detention. But the purpose of a further hearing would not be of any utility at all.”
The court could order the case to be discontinued, with no order as to costs, Kerin said, “in the interests of practicality and being pragmatic”.
The judge, Michael Burnett KC, said it was also possible the case could be dismissed. However, the respondents argued that there were still details that needed to be settled in the event Shafiq’s side wanted to reopen the case at some point.
The case of Shafiq v the commonwealth and other respondents was adjourned to June.
