Australia's offshore detention regime has been the subject of numerous attempts to seek accountability for harm caused to detainees using legal and other avenues in Australia. This Article examines recent strategic litigation actions against the Australian government and the corporate contractors engaged in offshore detention, including: Kamasaee v. Commonwealth; AUB19 v. Commonwealth; and actions seeking injunctions requiring the Australian government to airlift detainees to Australia for medical treatment. While these actions have vindicated the rights of those in offshore detention in specific ways, and in some instances facilitated compensation for harms caused while in detention, none have proved capable of challenging the underlying basis of the offshore detention regime, nor of providing a foreseeable end to the detention, whether by facilitating credible prospects for resettlement, or by other means. The Article provides an account of the achievements and limitations of these claims and concludes that although certain features of the Australian jurisdiction make it possible to pursue transnational claims, and thus potentially provide remedy for those who have suffered wrongs in Australia's offshore detention regime, such claims need to be pursued with the utmost care and with careful consideration of the complexities of the Australian political and legal environment.

There are more displaced people around the world than ever before, and over half are children. Australia and other wealthy nations have implemented increasingly harsh policies, justified as ‘humane deterrence’, and aimed at preventing asylum seekers (persons without preestablished resettlement visas) from entering their borders and gaining protection. Australian psychiatrists and other health professionals have documented the impact of these harsh policies since their inception. Their experience in identifying and challenging the effects of these policies on the mental health of asylum seekers may prove instructive to others facing similar issues. In outlining the Australian experience, we draw selectively on personal experience, research, witness account issues, reports by human rights organisations, clinical observations and commentaries. Australia’s harsh response to asylum seekers, including indefinite mandatory detention and denial of permanent protection for those found to be refugees, starkly demonstrates the ineluctable intersection of mental health, human rights, ethics and social policy, a complexity that the profession is uniquely positioned to understand and hence reflect back to government and the wider society.