Abstract: In December 2025, the High Court of Australia delivered a landmark ruling in the highly anticipated YBFZ follow-up challenge: the mandatory imposition of curfews and electronic monitoring devices on released immigration detainees by the executive, without individualised risk assessment, may constitute unconstitutional 'punitive measures.' This article provides an in-depth analysis of how this ruling forces the Department of Home Affairs to restructure the 'Community Protection Board (CPB)' assessment mechanism, and how thousands of BVR holders can apply to have harsh monitoring conditions removed.
December 15, 2025 — Two years ago, the NZYQ judgment ended "indefinite immigration detention" in Australia, leading to the release of hundreds of non-citizens into the community. In response, the Federal Government swiftly passed emergency legislation mandating that these Bridging Visa R (BVR) holders wear electronic ankle bracelets and adhere to strict curfews.
However, the struggle between executive and judicial power did not end there. This week, with the delivery of the High Court's ruling on the subsequent constitutional challenge in the YBFZ case, the scales of justice have tipped once again. While the Court did not completely abolish the electronic monitoring system, it explicitly stated: Imposing harsh monitoring measures as a "default setting" on everyone infringes upon the judicial power's exclusive right to punish.
This ruling has caused shockwaves in Canberra. For the thousands of non-citizens living in the community with trackers on their ankles, this could mean a chance to finally escape this life of "prison without walls"—provided they can pass the new assessments.
To understand the profound significance of this ruling, one must clarify the "Separation of Powers" principle in the Australian Constitution.
In this 2025 ruling, the High Court Justices reasoned that if a released non-citizen has no history of violent crime, or if their risk of reoffending is extremely low, yet the government still mandates a nightly curfew and 24-hour monitoring, the severity of such restrictions exceeds the necessity of "protecting the community," thereby mutating into "punishment."
The Key Legal Test—"Proportionality":
The Court established a new standard: any monitoring condition must be proportional to the specific risk that the individual poses to the community. If there is no specific evidence proving a person needs monitoring, then the monitoring is unlawful.
Impacted by this ruling, the Community Protection Board (CPB), responsible for recommending visa conditions, faces immense administrative pressure at the end of 2025.
Over the past two years, the CPB often adopted a "batch processing" model, recommending the highest level of monitoring for almost all NZYQ-cohort releases. Now, however, the Department of Home Affairs is forced to conduct Case-by-Case Reviews for all existing BVR holders.
New Review Criteria Include:
It is crucial to note that this is not a "general amnesty." The High Court's ruling preserves the government's power to impose strict monitoring on "high-risk non-citizens."
For those involved in child sex offences, serious violence, or terrorism associations, the government still has ample grounds to maintain electronic monitoring and curfews. Furthermore, to quell public panic regarding the judgment, the government may implement even tighter Human Surveillance on this "hardcore" group, such as increasing the frequency of spot checks by Police or ABF officers.
Therefore, the BVR cohort in 2025 will see a distinct polarisation:
For BVR holders currently subject to electronic monitoring or curfews, the current legal environment offers an opportunity to take the initiative. The Immigix Legal Team recommends the following steps:
Do not rely on government-appointed assessments. Applicants should engage senior forensic psychologists or criminologists at their own expense to conduct an independent risk assessment. If the report concludes "low risk," this will be the most powerful weapon to challenge monitoring conditions.
Under the relevant sections of the Migration Act, formally apply to the Minister for a "Variation of Visa Conditions." In the application, you must directly cite the latest High Court precedents and argue that the current monitoring measures violate the principle of "proportionality."
If the Minister refuses to remove the conditions, or if the CPB delays the review, one can apply to the Federal Court for a Writ of Mandamus or related relief, asking the Court to compel the government to fulfill its duties under the new law.
This ruling in 2025 is a significant victory for the rule of law in Australia. It reaffirms a principle: even for non-citizens, the exercise of executive power cannot be unlimited or arbitrary.
However, there is a long administrative process between the words on the judgment and the unlocking of the shackle on the ankle. For BVR holders, now is not the time to passively wait for government benevolence, but a critical moment to use legal weapons to prove they are no longer a "risk," thereby winning back their dignity and freedom.
The Immigix team is closely monitoring the CPB's latest review processes, dedicated to assisting clients in securing the most lenient visa conditions during this legal window.