Jiro Muramats v Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Western Australia
Case
•
[1923] HCA 41
•21 September 1923
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jiro Muramats v Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Western Australia [1923] HCA 41
[1923] HCA 41
21 September 1923
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Western Australia appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of a Court of Petty Sessions. The dispute concerned the eligibility of Jiro Muramats, a Japanese national naturalized in Victoria, to be enrolled on the Commonwealth electoral roll. Muramats had been enrolled on the Western Australian Legislative Assembly roll, but his claim for Commonwealth enrolment was rejected.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether Muramats, as a naturalized Japanese person, was disqualified from voting at a State election under the Western Australian Electoral Act 1907, and consequently, whether he was protected by section 41 of the Commonwealth Constitution from being prevented by Commonwealth law from enrolment. The Court also considered whether a person born in Japan could be considered an "aboriginal native of Asia or the Islands of the Pacific" for the purposes of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1922.
The Court reasoned that section 18 of the Western Australian Electoral Act 1907 disqualified "aboriginal natives of Australia, Asia, Africa, or of the Islands of the Pacific" from being enrolled or voting, and this disqualification overrode the general entitlement to enrolment under section 17. It was held that a Japanese person born in Japan was to be considered an "aboriginal native" of Asia for the purposes of both the State and Commonwealth electoral legislation. Consequently, Muramats was disqualified from voting at a State election, meaning he did not possess the right to vote at a State election that would grant him protection under section 41 of the Constitution. Therefore, he was disqualified by section 39(5) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1922 from enrolment on the Commonwealth roll.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that Muramats was disqualified from enrolment on the Commonwealth electoral roll. Additionally, one of the judges noted that the High Court had the power to extend the time for obtaining an order nisi for review, even after the statutory period had expired, under the relevant High Court Rules and Western Australian Justices Act.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether Muramats, as a naturalized Japanese person, was disqualified from voting at a State election under the Western Australian Electoral Act 1907, and consequently, whether he was protected by section 41 of the Commonwealth Constitution from being prevented by Commonwealth law from enrolment. The Court also considered whether a person born in Japan could be considered an "aboriginal native of Asia or the Islands of the Pacific" for the purposes of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1922.
The Court reasoned that section 18 of the Western Australian Electoral Act 1907 disqualified "aboriginal natives of Australia, Asia, Africa, or of the Islands of the Pacific" from being enrolled or voting, and this disqualification overrode the general entitlement to enrolment under section 17. It was held that a Japanese person born in Japan was to be considered an "aboriginal native" of Asia for the purposes of both the State and Commonwealth electoral legislation. Consequently, Muramats was disqualified from voting at a State election, meaning he did not possess the right to vote at a State election that would grant him protection under section 41 of the Constitution. Therefore, he was disqualified by section 39(5) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1922 from enrolment on the Commonwealth roll.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that Muramats was disqualified from enrolment on the Commonwealth electoral roll. Additionally, one of the judges noted that the High Court had the power to extend the time for obtaining an order nisi for review, even after the statutory period had expired, under the relevant High Court Rules and Western Australian Justices Act.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Constitutional Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
3
R v Pearson; Ex parte Sipka
[1983] HCA 6
Stevenson v Yasso
[2006] QCA 40
Attorney-General (Cth) v Queensland
[1990] FCA 358
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0