Ex parte De Braic [1971] HCA 15

Ex parte De Braic [1971] HCA 15

The Migration Act provisions applying to a person who entered Australia for a temporary stay were valid laws with respect to immigration; the applicant fell within those provisions after conviction for offences punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer, the Minister's deportation order was valid, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Order Nisi for Writ of Habeas Corpus / High Court of Australia Matter Removed From the Supreme Court of South Australia Under S. 40 a of the Judiciary Act 1903 1969 Cth
Outcome
Application for order nisi for writ of habeas corpus refused.
Legal Topics
['constitutional Validity of Migration Act Provisions' 'immigration Power' 'deportation of Temporary Visitor' 'custody Pending Deportation']
['constitutional Law' 'migration Law' 'habeas Corpus'] ['constitutional Validity of Migration Act Provisions' 'immigration Power' 'deportation of Temporary Visitor' 'custody Pending Deportation']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Order Nisi for Writ of Habeas Corpus / High Court of Australia Matter Removed From the Supreme Court of South Australia Under S. 40 a of the Judiciary Act 1903 1969 Cth

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commonwealth Parliament had legislative power to enact a definition of "immigrant" including a person who entered Australia for a temporary stay only.' "Whether the Minister's deportation order under s. 13 of the Migration Act 1958-1966 Cth was valid." 'Whether the applicant showed any ground for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, including by reason of pending civil litigation in South Australia.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Migration Act provisions applying to a person who entered Australia for a temporary stay were valid laws with respect to immigration; the applicant fell within those provisions after conviction for offences punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer, the Minister's deportation order was valid, and the applicant was lawfully in custody pending deportation. His pending civil litigation did not provide a ground for habeas corpus.

Court Disposition

Application for order nisi for writ of habeas corpus refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for order nisi for writ of habeas corpus refused.']