R v Goldie; Ex parte Picklum

Gordon Picklum was charged before a stipendiary magistrate with being knowingly concerned in the commission of an offence by Gee Kee Way, a prohibited immigrant, who was allegedly found within the Commonwealth in contravention of the Immigration Act 1901-1935. The alleged offence occurred on 2 July 1937, at divers places in New South Wales. Picklum was convicted and appealed to the High Court by way of an order nisi for a writ of prohibition.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the evidence established that Picklum was knowingly concerned in Gee Kee Way being found within the Commonwealth in contravention of the Immigration Act, and whether the Immigration Act and Crimes Act, as applied, were within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. Specifically, the court considered the meaning of "found within the Commonwealth" and whether Picklum's actions constituted aiding or abetting the commission of the principal offence.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Latham C.J., Dixon and McTiernan JJ., held that Picklum was not guilty of the offence charged. Their reasoning was that the evidence did not establish that Picklum was concerned in Gee Kee Way's entry into Australia or his presence within the Commonwealth. While Picklum was involved in transporting Gee Kee Way within New South Wales, this transportation occurred after Gee Kee Way was already within the Commonwealth. The court concluded that being concerned in a prohibited immigrant's movement within the Commonwealth did not equate to being concerned in their being found within the Commonwealth, as required by the charge. Starke J. dissented, finding that Picklum's actions in assisting Gee Kee Way to enter and be present in the Commonwealth at Burwood meant he was knowingly concerned in the offence. Evatt J. also dissented, believing the evidence supported the conviction.

The majority allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.