ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS OF The Constitution (63 &64 Vict., C. 12), secs. 71, 73, 75, 76, 77 - The Judiciary Act
1903 (No. 6 of 1903), sec8, 30, 33, 34, 39, 68, 79, 80-Justices Act 1890 (Victoria) (No. 1105), sec. 127 - Authority of Parliament to confer appellate federal jurisdic- tion on other Court than High Court-Whether appellate jurisdiction conferred on State Courts-Offence against Commonwealth Law-Summary Conviction- Appeal to State Court-Bemedy where Court denies jurisdiction- Mandamus- Appeal.
Where a Court of a State declines jurisdiction in a matter as to which it is invested with federal jurisdiction, the remedy is by recourse to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.
The federal jurisdiction which Parliament is by sec. 77 of the Constitution authorized to confer upon the Courts of the several States, and upon federal Courts other than the High Court, includes both original and appellate jurisdiction.
Sec. 39 of the Judiciary Act 1903 is a valid exercise of the authority conferred, and under it the Courts of the several States have federal appellate jurisdiction, as regards the matters enumerated in secs, 75 and 76 of the Constitution, to the same extent that, and subject to the same conditions as under the State laws they have appellate jurisdiction in matters to which the State laws apply.
Held, therefore, that a person being convicted in Victoria by a Police Magistrate of an offence under sec. 7 of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 and by sec. 127 of the Justices Act 1890 (Vict.), an appeal lying from conviction by a Police Magistrate to a Court of General Sessions, such person may appeal to a Court of General Sessions. MANDAMUS.
Before James Anderson Panton, Esq., a Police Magistrate one Ah Yick was, on the information of Albert Lehmert, charged with an offence against sec. 7 of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 and being convicted, was ordered to be imprisoned for fourteen days. The defendant gave notice of appeal against this convic- tion to the Court of General Sessions under the provisions of the Justices Act 1890 (Victoria). The appeal coming on for hearing before His Honor Judge Johnston, Chairman of the Court of General Sessions, objection was taken that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, inasmuch as the matter being one of federal jurisdiction, an appeal could only be had to the High Court. On this ground the learned Judge held that he had no jurisdiction. An order nisi was then obtained from the High Court calling upon the learned Judge and the informant to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to compel the learned Judge to hear and determine the appeal.
Coldham (with him Ah Ket), for the defendant, moved the order absolute.
Harrison Moore, for His Honor Judge Johnston. The jurisdic- tion under which the Police Magistrate acted is conferred by sec 68 of the Judiciary Act 1903. Two questions arise,…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Ah Yick v Lehmert
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ah Yick v Lehmert [1905] HCA 22
Case
[1905] HCA 22
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Ah Yick v Lehmert concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Ah Yick, and the defendant, Lehmert. The case came before the High Court of Australia, presided over by Griffith C.J. and Barton J.
The central legal issue before the Court was the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Judiciary Act 1903, specifically in relation to the jurisdiction of the High Court as established by the Constitution. The Court was required to determine whether the Act, in its purported conferral or limitation of jurisdiction, was consistent with the powers and limitations set out in sections 71, 73, 75, 76, and 77 of the Constitution.
The Court's reasoning focused on the division of powers between the Commonwealth Parliament and the States, and the exclusive nature of the High Court's jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution. Griffith C.J. and Barton J. applied principles of constitutional interpretation to ascertain the intended scope of the High Court's judicial power. They considered the extent to which the Parliament could legislate with respect to the jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly in light of the specific heads of jurisdiction enumerated in the Constitution. The Court's analysis underscored the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law, and any legislation inconsistent with its provisions is invalid.