Meyer v Poynton - [1920] HCA 36

POYNTON AND ANOTHER Alien-Deportation-Order for deportation-Communication to alien-Naturaliza-

tion-Revocation-Reasons of Governor-GeneralUltra vires-Treaty of Peace -Effect on naturalization-Naturalization Act 1903-1917 (No. 11 of 1903- MELBOURNE,

No. 25 of 1917), sec. 11-Aliens Restriction Order 1915 (Orders in Council of June 4.

27th May 1915 and 1st March 1916), par. 2J-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. C. 12), sec. 51 (XIX.).

Par. 2J of the Aliens Restriction Order 1915, which authorizes the Minister of Defence to "order the deportation of any alien," does not require communi- cation to the alien of an order made under it for the purpose of giving the order efficacy and effect.

Sec. 11 of the Naturalization Act 1903-1917 provides that, where " (b) the Governor-General is satisfied that it is desirable for any reason that a certificate of naturalization should be revoked," he may revoke it.

Held, that a revocation of a certificate of naturalization need not state the reasons of the Governor-General.

27 CLR 437

Held, also, that sec. 11 is a law relating to naturalization, and is therefore within the power conferred upon the Parliament of the Commonwealth by sec. 51 (XIX.) of the Constitution.

Art. 278 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany provides that' Germany undertakes to recognize any new nationality which has been or may be acquired by her nationals under the laws of the Allied and Associated Powers and in accordance with the decisions of the competent authorities of these Powers pursuant to naturalization laws or under treaty stipulations, and to regard such persons as having, in consequence of the acquisition of such new nationality, in all respects severed their allegiance to their country of origin."

Held, that that article does not affect the right given by sec. 11 of the Naturalization Act 1903-1917 to the Governor-General to revoke the certificate of naturalization of a natural-born German subject.

MOTION for interim injunctions.

An action was instituted in the High Court by Frederick William Meyer against the Honourable Alexander Poynton, Minister for Home and Territories, and the Honourable George Foster Pearce, Minister of Defence, by which the plaintiff claimed an injunction restraining the first named defendant from further proceeding in respect of the revocation of a certificate of naturalization granted to the plaintiff and from taking any step in pursuance of such revocation; and an injunction restraining the second named defendant, his agents, officers or servants, from exercising the powers conferred on him by the Aliens Restriction Order 1915 for the purpose of arresting the plaintiff and /or ordering his deportation from the Commonwealth or from detaining him or keeping him in detention or under arrest or interfering with his freedom or liberty in any manner.

A motion was now made by the plaintiff for interim injunctions in terms of the claim.

The material facts appear in the judgment hereunder. Latham, for the plaintiff. The order contemplated by par. 2J of the Aliens Restriction Order 1915 is an order directed to the alien, and must be communicated to the alien…

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 Meyer v Poynton

Details

AGLC: Meyer v Poynton [1920] HCA 36
Case: [1920] HCA 36
Decision Date: 4 June 1920

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an application by Frederick William Meyer for interim injunctions against Alexander Poynton, the Minister for Home and Territories, and George Foster Pearce, the Minister of Defence. Meyer sought to restrain Poynton from proceeding with the revocation of his certificate of naturalization and Pearce from taking steps to arrest him or order his deportation under the Aliens Restriction Order 1915.

The legal issues before the court were whether an order for deportation under paragraph 2J of the Aliens Restriction Order 1915 required communication to the alien to be effective, whether the Governor-General's revocation of a naturalization certificate under section 11(b) of the Naturalization Act 1903-1917 was valid without stating reasons and if the plaintiff's naturalization had indeed been revoked, whether section 11(b) of the Naturalization Act was a valid exercise of the Commonwealth Parliament's power under section 51(XIX) of the Constitution, and whether Article 278 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany affected the Commonwealth's right to revoke the plaintiff's naturalization.

The court held that an order for deportation under paragraph 2J of the Aliens Restriction Order 1915 did not require communication to the alien to be effective, as it was a direction to government officers rather than a command to the alien. The court found that the plaintiff's certificate of naturalization had been validly revoked by the Governor-General under section 11(b) of the Naturalization Act, and that the reasons for revocation were not required to be stated and could not be challenged in court. Furthermore, the court determined that section 11(b) was a valid law relating to naturalization and thus within the constitutional power of the Commonwealth Parliament. Finally, the court ruled that Article 278 of the Treaty of Peace did not confer any rights upon the plaintiff that would prevent the revocation of his naturalization under Australian law.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for interim injunctions was dismissed with costs.

Orders