R v Lindbergh: Ex parte Jong Hing

The case of *R v Lindbergh: Ex parte Jong Hing* concerned an application for a writ of habeas corpus brought by Jong Hing against the Superintendent of Immigration at the port of Fremantle. Jong Hing sought to challenge his detention under the *Immigration Restriction Act 1901* (Cth). The central dispute revolved around whether Jong Hing qualified as a prohibited immigrant under the Act, thereby justifying his detention. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia, comprising Griffith C.J., Barton and O'Connor JJ.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation and application of section 3, subsection (n) of the *Immigration Restriction Act 1901*. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether Jong Hing, who had previously been domiciled in a colony that later became part of the Commonwealth, was exempt from the definition of a prohibited immigrant. This required the Court to consider the meaning of "domiciled" in the context of the Act and whether Jong Hing's prior residence satisfied the conditions for exemption.

The Court reasoned that the exception in section 3(n) applied to persons who had been domiciled in a colony prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth. The judges considered the evidence presented regarding Jong Hing's prior residence and concluded that he had indeed established a domicile in Western Australia before Federation. Consequently, he was not considered a prohibited immigrant under the Act. The Court found that the Superintendent of Immigration had acted without lawful authority in detaining Jong Hing.

The High Court made absolute the order nisi for a writ of habeas corpus, directing that Jong Hing be discharged from custody.