Tragically, it is not. This is one of a spate of recent deaths by asylum seekers in detention, or in the community on bridging visas, that demand a broader and independent review of the detention network. Fazel Chegeni was found dead on Christmas Island. Such an inquiry would examine the common denominators in each of the deaths (the cause of Mr Chegeni's death is not yet known) and how they should be addressed. It would also probe the extent of self-harm in the network. It should investigate how it is that vulnerable torture victims like Mr Chegeni, who arrived five years ago, are placed in detention with convicted criminals awaiting deportation after visa cancellations. It would probe his history since his arrival in 2010, including the assault charge (after an incident in detention that resulted in him being given a good behaviour bond) and several acts of self-harm, and ask whether he had been let down by the system.

It should ask whether other more compassionate and affordable alternatives are on offer for people like Mr Chegeni, who, we are told, was making solid progress during a brief period of community detention. According to Pamela Curr, the refugee advocate who came to know him well while he was living in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, "he was learning English, riding his bike and walking his friend's dog and generally helping his friends". It should also probe the secrecy that, almost certainly, would have been a factor in the build-up of tensions inside the Christmas Island facility in recent months, along with the other causes of the unrest in the centre. In particular, it should examine why so little information was released after Mr Chegeni absconded until, with trademark insensitivity, an official confirmed the death of an "illegal maritime arrival" on Sunday. More broadly, an inquiry should investigate the institutionalised cruelty of a system that, until earlier this year, saw asylum seekers taken from detention in handcuffs to attend counselling for trauma and torture.

If there is a well-defined criteria governing placement of asylum seekers either awaiting receipt of protection visas or facing return to their homeland after the rejection of their claims, what is it? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it seems a one-size-fits-all approach is applied to people whose situations could not be more different. There is no shortage of advice coming from experts within and outside the system. What is it? And has it been followed? Follow us on Twitter