shonkyminister,

Maybe Labor wants the Liberals back in government, maybe not! Australians who suffered from NOALITION incompetence and criminal behaviour certainly don't.... With more years of Robodebts literally killing people, Sports Rorts, Car Park Rorts, Land Rorts and another trillion dollars of NOALITION debt! No thanks!

So the high court made a decision which caused the release of many potentially harmful persons in to the community.
Did they realise the 'follow-on' effect of such a decision?
Surely they would have 'thought ahead' to this eventuality?
It does seem there is a sense of 'irresponsibility' lurking here somewhere?

Could the government have simply changed the term of the 'prisoners' 'confinement' instead?
Made it definite instead of indefinite?
That would have given them breathing space, and time to organise a proper response.

My understanding is that the 'prisoners' were in Australia because their own countries refused to have them back, and no other country would take them either?

IF,

The High Court is concerned with the law, and the law only, as it should be. Your three questions are irrelevant, if you are applying them to the unanimous decision of the judges in this case. If there are short comings in the law then its for politicians who must decide how to remedy the situation. BTW, the laws involved in this particular case have been on the statute books for about 20 years.

"The High Court is concerned with the law, and the law only, as it should be."

The High Court was unanimous in their findings. Paul thinks that's the end of it.

The High Court was unanimous in their findings that Pell was innocent. Paul completely rejects that.

Nothing like consistency eh

Whether or not it is the law, the effect of a change to, or a re-evaluation of a law, needs to be taken in to account.
And any possible (adverse?) outcomes notified to those who administer the law?
They need to be able to 'get up to speed'?
To foist it on them suddenly is not helpful?
It can lead to strange situations.
So yes, more thinking by someone should have accompanied the change by the high court.
They must have realised their decision would allow perhaps undesirable persons to mix freely with the public?
So surely more thought should have preceded it?
Perhaps that were the case, but we are not privy to the full truth?

The nightmare pertains to the question of how one court, 20 years ago, allows indefinite detention, but a new court denies it.

Activist judges decide on their own feelings, not the law. Governments are not careful enough when they appoint judges.

And, it's all very well for the Coalition to jump up and down. During its 9 year reign, they were appointing as many activists to the High Court as Labor ever did.