Potter v Minahan

Last updated

Potter v Minahan
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case namePotter v Minahan
Decided8 October 1908
Citation(s) [1908] HCA 63, (1908) 7 CLR 277, 14 ALR 635
Case opinions
(3:2) 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 clearness."
Majority Griffith CJ, Barton, O'Connor JJ
Dissent Isaacs and Higgins JJ

Potter v Minahan is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia which was the first to recognise the principle of legality, the notion that without specific legislative language to do otherwise, courts should uphold fundamental rights. [1] The case is also noted for recognising the right to freedom of movement. [2]

Contents

Background

Occurring within the context of the White Australia policy, 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 Immigration Restriction Act. [3] 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 Frank Gavan Duffy, later Chief Justice, and William Ah Ket, the first Chinese-Australian barrister. [4] [3]

Decision

The majority concurred with the lower court and held that Minahan had maintained his domicile in Australia since birth. Section 51 of the Australian constitution (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. [5]

Notes

  1. Maxwell, Jack. "The principle of legality". Rule of Law Education Centre. Retrieved 11 June 2023.
  2. Rangiah, Priam (December 2022). "COVID Travel Bans, Citizenship and the Constitution: Do Australian Citizens Have a Constitutional Right of Abode?". Federal Law Review. 50 (4): 558–580. doi:10.1177/0067205X221107456. S2CID   250131077.
  3. 1 2 Bagnall, Kate (3 July 2018). "Potter v. Minahan : Chinese Australians, the law and belonging in White Australia". History Australia. 15 (3): 461–464, 470. doi: 10.1080/14490854.2018.1485503 .
  4. Lee, Jane (29 August 2018). "The Chinese-Australian barrister who fought the White Australia policy". ABC News. Retrieved 11 June 2023.
  5. Nicholls, Glenn (2007). Deported: a history of forced departures from Australia. Sydney: Univ. of New South Wales Press. p. 33. ISBN   9780868409894.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">White Australia policy</span> Historical racial policies in Australia

The White Australia policy was a set of racist historical policies that aimed to forbid people of non-European ethnic origins – especially Asians and Pacific Islanders – from immigrating to Australia in order to create a “white/British” ideal focused on but not exclusively Anglo-Celtic peoples. Pre-Federation the Australian colonies passed many anti-Chinese immigration laws mainly using Poll Taxes, with Federation in 1901 came discrimination based on the Dictation Test, a fake test that gave power to racially discriminate without mentioning race. The policy also affected immigrants from Germany, Italy, and other European countries, especially in wartime. Governments progressively dismantled such policies between 1949 and 1973. At first these changes were due to international pressure and were token modifications designed to maintain a white Australia until the Whitlam government removed the last racial elements of Australia’s immigration laws.

Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Anchor baby is a term used to refer to a child born to non-citizen parents in a country that has birthright citizenship which will therefore help the parents and other family members gain legal residency. In the U.S., the term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen under jus soli and the rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The term is also often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States. A similar term, "passport baby", has been used in Canada for children born through so-called "maternity" or "birth tourism".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Frank Gavan Duffy</span> Australian judge

Sir Frank Gavan DuffyKCMG PC KC was an Australian judge who served as the fourth Chief Justice of Australia, in office from 1931 to 1935. His total service on the High Court of Australia was from 1913 to 1935. Prior to his judicial career, he was one of Victoria's most prominent barristers.

In law, an alien is any person who is not a citizen or a national of a specific country, although definitions and terminology differ to some degree depending upon the continent or region. More generally, however, the term "alien" is perceived as synonymous with foreign national.

Nationality law is the law of a sovereign state, and of each of its jurisdictions, that defines the legal manner in which a national identity is acquired and how it may be lost. In international law, the legal means to acquire nationality and formal membership in a nation are separated from the relationship between a national and the nation, known as citizenship. Some nations domestically use the terms interchangeably, though by the 20th century, nationality had commonly come to mean the status of belonging to a particular nation with no regard to the type of governance which established a relationship between the nation and its people. In law, nationality describes the relationship of a national to the state under international law and citizenship describes the relationship of a citizen within the state under domestic statutes. Different regulatory agencies monitor legal compliance for nationality and citizenship. A person in a country of which he or she is not a national is generally regarded by that country as a foreigner or alien. A person who has no recognised nationality to any jurisdiction is regarded as stateless.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration Act 1971</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Immigration Act 1971 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom concerning immigration and nearly entirely remaking the field of British immigration law. The Act, as with the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, and that of 1968, restricts immigration, especially primary immigration into the UK. It introduced the concept of patriality or right of abode. It was also partly passed to legally clarify the rights of Commonwealth citizens within the United Kingdom in preparation for membership of the European Communities (EC) in which the United Kingdom would become a member state from 1 January 1973. It was coincidentally the same day which the Act came into full legal force which gave not only new automatic rights to EC member state citizens but would also give them priority over non-EC citizens under the obligations of the Treaty of Rome, of which the UK become a signatory though the Treaty of Accession, signed on 22 January 1972. In relation to deportation notices, the Act is referenced at sections 11 and 23 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of British nationality law</span> History of United Kingdom citizenship and related concepts

This article concerns the history of British nationality law.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of Canadian nationality law</span> History of citizenship in Canada

The history of Canadian nationality law dates back over three centuries, and has evolved considerably over that time.

United States citizenship can be acquired by birthright in two situations: by virtue of the person's birth within United States territory or because one or both of their parents is a US citizen. Birthright citizenship contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization.

The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial aspects of race in the United States</span> Aspect of history

Legislation seeking to direct relations between racial or ethnic groups in the United States has had several historical phases, developing from the European colonization of the Americas, the triangular slave trade, and the American Indian Wars. The 1776 Declaration of Independence included the statement that "all men are created equal", which has ultimately inspired actions and legislation against slavery and racial discrimination. Such actions have led to passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Multiple citizenship is a person's legal status in which the person is at the one time recognized by more than one country under its nationality and citizenship law as a national or citizen of that country. There is no international convention which determines the nationality or citizenship status of a person, which is consequently determined exclusively under national laws, that often conflict with each other, thus allowing for multiple citizenship situations to arise.

South African administrative law is the branch of public law which regulates the legal relations of public authorities, whether with private individuals and organisations or with other public authorities, or better say, in present-day South Africa, which regulates "the activities of bodies that exercise public powers or perform public functions, irrespective of whether those bodies are public authorities in a strict sense." According to the Constitutional Court, administrative law is "an incident of the separation of powers under which the courts regulate and control the exercise of public power by the other branches of government."

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1893, was a case challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency, and allowed for the arrest and deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws. The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates. The Supreme Court decision was in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus.

Section 51(xxvii) of the Constitution of Australia grants the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make laws with respect to "immigration and emigration." Historically, it was the principal legislative power in support of Australia's immigration scheme, which is now embodied in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Federal policy oversees and regulates immigration to the United States and citizenship of the United States. The United States Congress has authority over immigration policy in the United States, and it delegates enforcement to the Department of Homeland Security. Historically, the United States went through a period of loose immigration policy in the early-19th century followed by a period of strict immigration policy in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Policy areas related to the immigration process include visa policy, asylum policy, and naturalization policy. Policy areas related to illegal immigration include deferral policy and removal policy.

The Principle of Legality is an important legal doctrine in Australian public law.