Alexander v Donohoe

The case of *Alexander v Donohoe* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning a conviction under the *Immigration Restriction Act 1901*. The appellant, the master of a vessel, was convicted in a police court for an offence related to a prohibited immigrant entering the Commonwealth from his ship. He was ordered to pay a fine and costs. The appellant sought a prohibition, which the High Court treated as an appeal.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the magistrate had the jurisdiction to award costs when exercising federal jurisdiction, and whether the conviction was formally defective for failing to specify a term of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. The appellant argued that the magistrate lacked the power to award costs and that the conviction was invalid due to the absence of an alternative imprisonment term, as required by state legislation governing summary convictions.

The High Court reasoned that magistrates exercising federal jurisdiction possess the same powers regarding costs as they do when exercising their ordinary jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court held that even if the conviction contained a formal defect by omitting an alternative term of imprisonment, it possessed the power under section 37 of the *Judiciary Act 1903* to amend the conviction by adding such a provision. However, as neither party sought this amendment, the Court elected not to exercise this power.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The Court also varied the order of the Supreme Court by directing that the costs of the first trial be costs in the action.