SteeleRedux, to be fair we have on the one side "A statement, signed by 53 international law scholars from 17 Australian universities, saying Australia’s conduct under Operation Sovereign Borders “clearly violates international law”."
and to balance that learned opinion, we have that well researched opinion of that eminent legal expert Judge Indi, For the edification of all, I'll reproduce Judge Indi's learned legal opinion in full.

"No!"

Judge Jeffreys will never be dead whilst ever Judge Indi is with us. LOL

Yes,Paul, I have no idea why we bother to cite 53 international law scholars from 17 universities..when we have our own experts on ths common garden variety forum.

For example, Shadow Minister, the expert international law, has just assured us above that Rogue Scotty is perfectly in his rights to do what he's doing.

Not to mention further Lolz from SPQR quoting:

"....that the ONE illegal who might have merited further investigation, when told he would have wait on Manus Island till his processing was completed--OPTED TO RETURN TO SRI LANKA."

Info which would have come straight from Scotty's "Information Department" - the same Scotty and the same Information Department that initially fed us a pack of lies in the wake of the Manus atrocities

P'rot,

<<Info which would have come straight from Scotty's "Information Department" ->>

How typical!

I am very sure that if it had been the testimony of an illegal angling for a technicality to gain entry, or an advocate riding the illegal immigration gravy-train you would see fit to give it headline billing.

Here you go, SM...

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-tears-up-un-treaty-with-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-20140707-zsz5j.html

"Under international law, Australia has an obligation to ensure people are not exposed to refoulement. This isn’t something forced upon us by the UN, but a commitment we made voluntarily.

The principle of non-refoulement means that Australia is prohibited from returning people to any territory where they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group. Australia is also prohibited from returning people to where they face a real risk of being arbitrarily deprived of life, subjected to the death penalty, tortured, or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Australia’s duty arises by virtue of our ratification of a range of treaties, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, its 1967 Protocol, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This obligation extends to any place where Australian officials exert control over asylum seekers – whether within Australian territory, in another country, or on the high seas.

In order to ensure that asylum seekers are not exposed to refoulement, they must have access to a fair and rigorous status determination process. Even though the Refugee Convention does not stipulate how refugee status determination should take place, UNHCR’s Executive Committee (which includes Australia) has set out minimum standards that countries should observe."

Regarding the 153, of whom we know nothing of their whereabouts officially.

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CED/Pages/ConventionCED.aspx

"Article 17

1. No one shall be held in secret detention."

(Just one article among many where we appear to be in breach)

Sleazy, crooked ambulance chasers can always be relied on to say anything to lengthen a courts deliberation. They allow barristers to avoid all tax by going bankrupt every few years and have no claim to be anything other than human filth! Lets see them band together and stop this fraud and then they can talk about justice. I suggest the lawyers and judges on this bit of nonsense address this national disgrace first.
By the by the law of the sea is that if you are rescued then it is your rescuer who decides where you are going. So they were rescued and sent where they did not want to go? Boo hoo!

The usual panic and flat spin is going on.
I have seen just one report that the UN Refugee Organisation has decided
that there is now no risk in Sri Lanka and is itself returning refugees there.

If this is so then all this is just political waffle.