Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Al-Kateb v Godwin

Al-Kateb v Godwin[edit]

This is an important recent Australian court case which has both popular significance (a controversial decision on a migration matter, a hot-button topic in Australian politics in recent years) and legal significance (as the leading case on executive detention, that is detention imposed by the executive rather than judicial government).

In my humble opinion as the article's main contributor, it is comprehensive (including a treatment of the background and consequences) and covers all aspects of the case in a way that I hope is understandable to those with and without specialist legal knowledge. It is referenced throughout, and incorporates a variety of sources. The article has already been through a peer review, where it received positive feedback leading to several improvements.

It is perhaps lacking an image, although I am not aware of any existing photographs of the person at the centre of the case. --bainer (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. --bainer (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Comprehensive and well written. However, the text is overtly sympathetic against the court ruling. I consider certain sections and sub-sections towards the end of the article to border on commentary; this can be easily seen in the "tragic" and Bill of Rights discussion, and the partisan quotes used: "saving Australia from boat people counts for more than Al-Kateb's raw liberty." and "It's like a death punishment." are but two examples. I will be changing my vote to an object if my qualms are not attended to. michael ^talk 17:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly open to including more points of view about the case in the article. However, I think the inclusion of these points of view is justified: the "death punishment" description was made by the subject of the case himself, and I think that inlcuding the parties' response to the case is appropriate (the Government didn't, as far as I am aware, express any strong views on the case after it was decided, rather there had been a change in the ministry and the new minister took a different approach, as set out in the article). The discussion about the case and a bill of rights were made by one of the judges who decided the case, and I would suggest that any comments made by judges about their cases are worthy of inclusion. Finally, in terms of media commentary, there were few (if any) commentators who came out in support of the decision, although I'll try to find some. That said, there's no discussion of the academic response to the case, which generally takes the line that the decision was strictly legally correct, despite other shortcomings. I shall include some discussion of that point of view. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to an object. When your suggestions above are implemented I will change my vote accordingly. michael ^talk 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a couple more academic responses to the case. I'm a little busy at the moment, but I should be able to incorporate these into the article by this weekend. --bainer (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Once they're inserted, the vote will change. michael ^talk 12:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting and comprehensive article on an important case. A couple of comments. The Judiciary Act reference is confusing to those who don't know the act, and the relevant sections aren't explained in the linked article - personally I'd delete the reference. Second, I've only read some of the judgements in the case, so how did Callinan J avoid deciding on the constitutionality of the section, given that he was in the majority? Oh, and on the above comments about bias, I don't think it's biased and the 'tragic' comment was made by one of the majority judges (obviously a supporter of the decision) about the circumstances leading to Kateb being a stateless person, not the decision itself. Psychobabble 03:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rebecca 05:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support comprehensive and well-relayed discussion of an important case. It would be beneficial if there was an article on the Migration Act 1958 for readers to seek further information from.--cj | talk 09:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. darkliight^[πalk] 14:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent - thank you for taking my recommendations into account. You might like to add to the article McHugh J's "heresy" jibe at Kirby J in the judgement. (JROBBO 06:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]