Refugees sent to Nauru and PNG win legal victory against Canberra

Refugees and asylum seekers held in offshore detention by Australia have won a pivotal court victory against Canberra.

Australia's apex judiciary, the High Court, has ruled detainees in Papua New Guinea and on Nauru can have their claims against the government heard in any appropriate court.

Previously the Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton contended all cases should be heard by the High Court, a move which inhibited their legal options.

Dutton also claimed that those held in custody could not make claims against government.

The High Court last week disagreed.

This would have come as a blow to Minister Dutton according to a lawyer representing the detainees, the National Justice Project's George Newhouse.

"It means that they can continue their court cases to hold the minister accountable for their injuries in the Supreme Courts or the State Courts and Territory Courts of Australia or the Federal Court," he said.

"And they aren't forced to the High Court of Australia."

The High Court decision will also allow detainees to seek damages from Canberra with the judgement affecting more than 50 people still held on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea.

They will now be able to hold the Federal Government accountable if injuries and harm were experienced while under Australia's duty of care, said Newhouse.

He claimed many had also been denied appropriate medical care.

"What this case means is that those individuals have access to Australian courts, not just the High Court but any of the lower courts in Australia, to seek access to medical care and to hold the government accountable for their injuries and harm."

Compensation will also be sought where appropriate according to Newhouse.

However, despite the highest court in land ruling in favour of those detained and mistreated by Canberra, Minister Dutton may attempt legislative change said Newhouse.

With no appeal mechanism available through the courts it may be Dutton's only option but this, said Newhouse, would create a constitutional tension according to Newhouse who said Dutton is left with no appeal mechanism in the courts to undo the ruling.

"However, I'm sure he'll be looking at other ways of trying to stymie people's access to the courts," said Newhouse.

"He might try some sort of legislative reform but what he's doing is creating a real constitutional... tension."

Such a move would pit the executive arm of government against the judiciary, noted Newhouse, and would mean diminishing the judiciary's ability to review government actions, an essential democratic check and balance.