R v Lindbergh: Ex parte Jong Hing [1905] HCA 36

R v Lindbergh: Ex parte Jong Hing [1905] HCA 36

As no party appeared to show cause against release, and prima facie liberty is presumed, the Court was bound to order the applicants' discharge from custody.

Parties
Prosecutor: The King; Respondent: Charles Lindbergh; Applicant: Jong Hing; Applicant: Jong Nie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 1905
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus Applications / Application for Writs of Habeas Corpus in the High Court
Outcome
Applicants discharged from custody
Legal Topics
Habeas Corpus, Domicile, Immigration Restriction Act
Immigration Law Administrative Law Habeas Corpus Domicile Immigration Restriction Act

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The King

Prosecutor

Charles Lindbergh

Respondent

Jong Hing

Applicant

Jong Nie

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Habeas Corpus Applications / Application for Writs of Habeas Corpus in the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants were wrongfully detained as prohibited immigrants under the Immigration Restriction Act 1901
  2. 2 Whether applicants came within the exception for persons previously domiciled in the Commonwealth

Ratio Decidendi

As no party appeared to show cause against release, and prima facie liberty is presumed, the Court was bound to order the applicants' discharge from custody.

Court Disposition

Applicants discharged from custody

Orders

  • Applicants to be discharged as there was no cause shown for further detention