Li Wan Quai v Christie [1906] HCA 42

Li Wan Quai v Christie [1906] HCA 42

The evidence showed Li Wan Quai evaded an officer under the Act by deserting his ship and being absent from muster; therefore, the dictation test could lawfully be put to him at any time. The subsequent offence of being found within the Commonwealth as a prohibited immigrant was distinct from the earlier charge of entering the Commonwealth, so the bar of autrefois convict did not apply. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Li Wan Quai; Respondent: J. M. Christie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 1906
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Court of General Sessions at Melbourne, From a Conviction in the Court of Petty Sessions
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Prohibited Immigrants, Desertion by Crew Member, Evading an Officer, Autrefois Acquit, Amendments on Appeal
Immigration Law Criminal Law Procedure Prohibited Immigrants Desertion by Crew Member Evading an Officer Autrefois Acquit Amendments on Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Wan Quai

Appellant

J. M. Christie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Court of General Sessions at Melbourne, From a Conviction in the Court of Petty Sessions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a crew member absent from a muster is a prohibited immigrant who has evaded an officer under the Immigration Restriction Act 1901
  2. 2 Whether the plea of autrefois acquit/res judicata barred the subsequent prosecution
  3. 3 Whether the information (charge) could and should have been amended on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence showed Li Wan Quai evaded an officer under the Act by deserting his ship and being absent from muster; therefore, the dictation test could lawfully be put to him at any time. The subsequent offence of being found within the Commonwealth as a prohibited immigrant was distinct from the earlier charge of entering the Commonwealth, so the bar of autrefois convict did not apply. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; conviction affirmed.