No compensation for detainee

On 9 May 2025, the Supreme Court of South Australia handed down its decision in detention centre test case Saadat v Commonwealth & Ors [SASC] 59. It was the lead claim of many claims by former detainees of immigration detention centres against the Commonwealth and its contracted service providers, alleging negligent treatment and resultant psychiatric injury. The Court dismissed Mr Saadat’s claim.

Background

Mr Saadat was born in Iran and converted from Islam to Zoroastrianism. He faced government persecution in Iran, including imprisonment and torture, for his conversion. A family friend helped him escape using a false passport. He journeyed to Australia from Indonesia on a small unseaworthy fishing boat, with 113 passengers and limited supplies. He arrived in December 2000 as an unlawful citizen. He sought asylum but was detained in Curtin and Baxter detention centres, which were operationally managed by private third party contractors (third parties). While detained, he applied for various visas, all of which were rejected.

Mr Saadat raised grievances about his detention conditions, including inadequate mental and physical health services, inhospitable conditions and punitive treatment (including being kept in the management unit as solitary confinement). He witnessed and participated in protests, fights, hunger strikes, riots and self-harm. He did not inform health professionals about his struggles, believing only detainees of sound mind would be released.

After his release in April 2005, he struggled with employment, developed a dependence on OxyContin, and faced marital issues leading to police intervention.

Claim

Mr Saadat alleged the Commonwealth was negligent and caused him psychiatric injury due to detention conditions, which resulted in loss and damage.

He sought an extension to file his claim after the applicable limitation period expired, arguing that Limitations of Actions Act 1936 (SA) amendments did not apply to his case and he only realised his psychiatric illness in 2011 after reading his psychiatrist's report.

The Commonwealth accepted it owed a non-delegable duty to ensure reasonable care, but denied breaching that duty, claiming it was discharged to third parties and by appropriate management of the facilities. The Commonwealth joined the private contractors as third parties.

The Commonwealth also denied Mr Saadat suffered psychiatric injury, attributing any injury to factors before or after detention.

The third parties relied on the provisions in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in which any injury, loss or damage attributable to certain features or conditions are non-compensable, such as the mere fact of detention, the length and indeterminate nature, fear of deportation, rejection of applications for visa and subsequent unsuccessful appeals (non-compensable factors).

The key issues for determination were whether Mr Saadat suffered a psychiatric injury and if so, whether the injury was caused by the features or conditions of his detention, and whether it arose from a negligent act or failure to treat Mr Saadat.

Decision

Justice Stanley extended the period for Mr Saadat to bring his claim but dismissed the claim.

Mr Saadat's evidence was found to be unreliable, with inconsistencies compared to the evidence of other witnesses, inaccuracies, and falsehoods that couldn't be explained by the passage of time.

Justice Stanley explained the duty of care owed by the Commonwealth as follows:

‘The duty owed to the applicant by the Commonwealth was non-delegable. It was a duty to use reasonable care and to ensure reasonable care was taken by the third parties it employed to discharge this duty. The applicant was not owed a more stringent duty and nor did there exist a positive duty to protect the applicant from psychiatric injury in the absence of some evidence he was actually suffering, or at risk of personally suffering, such an injury while he was detained. A non-delegable duty does not extend beyond taking reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury.’

His Honour found no breach of the Commonwealth's duty of care, except for keeping Mr Saadat in the management unit longer than necessary, which was not causative of the injury.

Implications

Despite detainees being more vulnerable to mental illness, Mr Saadat did not prove he suffered psychiatric injury due to negligent treatment. His psychiatric illness (which was accepted as probably an Adjustment Disorder) and financial hardship was attributable to the refusal of his visa applications (a non-compensable factor) and external stresses like difficulty establishing a life in a new country and marital issues.

Given this was a test case, it remains to be seen if it will be appealed, or how other detainees with active claims will proceed. Each case will turn on its own merits, and it is possible another detainee cohort case could be successful, depending on individual treatment and circumstances.

However, the decision provides important guidance about the scope of a non-delegable duty of care and the extent to which of the duty owed by the Commonwealth to detainees. Although the Commonwealth’s duty was non-delegable, it was not an absolute duty to ensure a particular outcome or result.