Bain v Ah Kee [1914] HCA 2

Bain v Ah Kee [1914] HCA 2

A prior conviction for being a prohibited immigrant is not, on a subsequent prosecution, evidence that the person is then a prohibited immigrant; the conviction only adjudicates prohibited immigrant status at the time of conviction, not at a later date.

Parties
Appellant: William John Bain; Respondent: Ah Kee (otherwise Ah Yip)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 1914
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Court of Petty Sessions, Special Case Stated by Magistrate
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Prohibited Immigrant, Evidence, Prior Conviction, Immigration Restriction Act
Immigration Law Criminal Law Prohibited Immigrant Evidence Prior Conviction 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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William John Bain

Appellant

Ah Kee (otherwise Ah Yip)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From a Court of Petty Sessions, Special Case Stated by Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prior conviction for being a prohibited immigrant is evidence of prohibited immigrant status on subsequent prosecution
  2. 2 Whether respondent's prior conviction justifies conviction and imprisonment for being a prohibited immigrant found within the Commonwealth

Ratio Decidendi

A prior conviction for being a prohibited immigrant is not, on a subsequent prosecution, evidence that the person is then a prohibited immigrant; the conviction only adjudicates prohibited immigrant status at the time of conviction, not at a later date.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Information dismissed
  • Respondent to have costs of appeal