Amess v Bremen [1959] HCA 68

Amess v Bremen [1959] HCA 68

The applicant did not enter the Territory in breach of s.4(1) because, as master of the vessel 'Vega', he was covered by the exemption in s.4(2)(e); the provision is concerned with lawful entry at the time of landing, not subsequent events or intentions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
['prohibited Immigrants' 'entry Requirements' 'exemptions for Vessel Masters']
['immigration Law' 'criminal Law'] ['prohibited Immigrants' 'entry Requirements' 'exemptions for Vessel Masters']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant, as master of a vessel, was exempt from the prohibition on entry under s.4(1) of the Immigration Ordinance 1932-1940 by virtue of s.4(2)(e)' "Whether intention to stay affected the exemption for masters landing during the vessel's stay"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not enter the Territory in breach of s.4(1) because, as master of the vessel 'Vega', he was covered by the exemption in s.4(2)(e); the provision is concerned with lawful entry at the time of landing, not subsequent events or intentions.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Order of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, order that the appeal to that court be allowed with costs and the conviction of the appellant be quashed.' 'Respondent to pay the costs of the appellant of the appeal.']