31:
169:, which restricted Chinese and Asian migration to Australia, the case concerned James Frances Kitchen Minahan, who had been born in Australia in 1876 to a Chinese father and an Australian-born Irish mother, but from the age of five had lived in China. In 1908, following his father's death, Minahan returned to Australia, and despite holding an Australian birth certificate, was arrested and gaoled on the grounds of being a prohibited immigrant under the
173:. In April 1908, before the Victorian Court of Petty Sessions, Minahan was recognised to have remained domiciled in Victoria since birth and therefore could not be considered an immigrant under the Act. The Commonwealth appealed the decision to the High Court. Minahan was represented by
93:
Appeal dismissed. "It is in the last degree improbable that the legislature would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law, without expressing its intention with irresistible
200:
Issacs and
Higgins JJ concurred in the result but found for the defendant on a narrower basis, i.e. that the dictation test prescribed by the Immigration Restriction Act had not actually been performed on Minahan.
157:, the notion that without specific legislative language to do otherwise, courts should uphold fundamental rights. The case is also noted for recognising the right to freedom of movement.
197:(immigration power) was ruled not to give the Commonwealth the capacity to restrict the entry of people who already had established their right of residency.
379:
194:
241:
Rangiah, Priam (December 2022). "COVID Travel Bans, Citizenship and the
Constitution: Do Australian Citizens Have a Constitutional Right of Abode?".
404:
394:
313:
384:
193:
The joint judgement concurred with the lower court and held that
Minahan had maintained his domicile in Australia since birth.
389:
347:
154:
170:
113:
399:
369:
178:
105:
374:
73:
150:
41:
166:
77:
69:
219:
8:
281:"Potter v. Minahan : Chinese Australians, the law and belonging in White Australia"
258:
343:
262:
174:
292:
250:
297:
280:
102:
182:
254:
363:
124:
109:
30:
135:
314:"The Chinese-Australian barrister who fought the White Australia policy"
340:
Deported: a history of forced departures from
Australia
342:. Sydney: Univ. of New South Wales Press. p. 33.
361:
380:Rights in the Australian Constitution cases
185:, the first Chinese-Australian barrister.
29:
296:
274:
272:
195:Section 51 of the Australian constitution
337:
16:Judgement of the High Court of Australia
278:
240:
405:Anti-immigration politics in Australia
362:
269:
153:which was the first to recognise the
165:Occurring within the context of the
395:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Australia
311:
217:
13:
14:
416:
331:
305:
234:
222:. Rule of Law Education Centre
211:
149:is a landmark decision of the
1:
385:High Court of Australia cases
298:10.1080/14490854.2018.1485503
279:Bagnall, Kate (3 July 2018).
160:
312:Lee, Jane (29 August 2018).
7:
220:"The principle of legality"
188:
171:Immigration Restriction Act
10:
421:
390:Legal history of Australia
255:10.1177/0067205X221107456
131:
120:
98:
89:
84:
65:
57:
47:
37:
28:
23:
338:Nicholls, Glenn (2007).
204:
151:High Court of Australia
42:High Court of Australia
400:White Australia policy
370:1908 in Australian law
167:White Australia policy
155:principle of legality
70:[1908] HCA 63
291:(3): 461–464, 470.
243:Federal Law Review
285:History Australia
175:Frank Gavan Duffy
142:
141:
52:Potter v Minahan
412:
375:1908 in case law
354:
353:
335:
329:
328:
326:
324:
309:
303:
302:
300:
276:
267:
266:
238:
232:
231:
229:
227:
215:
146:Potter v Minahan
33:
24:Potter v Minahan
21:
20:
420:
419:
415:
414:
413:
411:
410:
409:
360:
359:
358:
357:
350:
336:
332:
322:
320:
310:
306:
277:
270:
239:
235:
225:
223:
218:Maxwell, Jack.
216:
212:
207:
191:
163:
17:
12:
11:
5:
418:
408:
407:
402:
397:
392:
387:
382:
377:
372:
356:
355:
348:
330:
304:
268:
249:(4): 558–580.
233:
209:
208:
206:
203:
190:
187:
183:William Ah Ket
162:
159:
140:
139:
133:
129:
128:
122:
118:
117:
100:
96:
95:
87:
86:
82:
81:
67:
63:
62:
61:8 October 1908
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
417:
406:
403:
401:
398:
396:
393:
391:
388:
386:
383:
381:
378:
376:
373:
371:
368:
367:
365:
351:
349:9780868409894
345:
341:
334:
319:
315:
308:
299:
294:
290:
286:
282:
275:
273:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
237:
221:
214:
210:
202:
198:
196:
186:
184:
180:
179:Chief Justice
176:
172:
168:
158:
156:
152:
148:
147:
137:
134:
130:
126:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
104:
101:
97:
92:
88:
85:Case opinions
83:
79:
75:
71:
68:
64:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
339:
333:
321:. Retrieved
317:
307:
288:
284:
246:
242:
236:
224:. Retrieved
213:
199:
192:
164:
145:
144:
143:
90:
51:
18:
132:Concurrence
121:Concurrence
94:clearness."
72:, (1908) 7
364:Categories
161:Background
263:250131077
66:Citations
318:ABC News
189:Decision
177:, later
114:O'Connor
103:Griffith
99:Majority
76:277, 14
323:11 June
226:11 June
125:Higgins
58:Decided
346:
261:
181:, and
136:Isaacs
110:Barton
259:S2CID
205:Notes
91:(5:0)
38:Court
344:ISBN
325:2023
228:2023
293:doi
251:doi
80:635
78:ALR
74:CLR
366::
316:.
289:15
287:.
283:.
271:^
257:.
247:50
245:.
116:JJ
112:,
108:,
106:CJ
352:.
327:.
301:.
295::
265:.
253::
230:.
138:J
127:J
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
