Ah You v Gleeson [1930] HCA 25

Ah You v Gleeson [1930] HCA 25

As no substantive evidence was adduced of evasion of an officer—only the bare averment in the information, and no statutory presumption applies—the conviction under the Immigration Restriction Act 1901-1908 cannot stand. The relevant section does not govern the appellant, who entered prior to the enactment of the later Act and is not subject to its provisions regarding the onus and means of proof.

Parties
Appellant; Defendant: Ah You; Respondent; Informant: James Gleeson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of General Sessions (on Appeal From a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria)
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Prohibited Immigrant, Burden of Proof, Dictation Test, Effect of Legislative Amendments
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Prohibited Immigrant Burden of Proof Dictation Test Effect of Legislative Amendments

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ah You

Appellant; Defendant

James Gleeson

Respondent; Informant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of General Sessions (on Appeal From a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sec. 5 (1) (a) of the Immigration Act 1901-1925 applies to immigrants who entered Australia prior to its enactment
  2. 2 Whether the averment in the information is sufficient proof of evasion of an officer under the relevant Act
  3. 3 Which statutory provision governs the appellant's circumstances given his year of entry

Ratio Decidendi

As no substantive evidence was adduced of evasion of an officer—only the bare averment in the information, and no statutory presumption applies—the conviction under the Immigration Restriction Act 1901-1908 cannot stand. The relevant section does not govern the appellant, who entered prior to the enactment of the later Act and is not subject to its provisions regarding the onus and means of proof.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Court of General Sessions set aside
  • Conviction quashed