Abstract
This article tells the story of James Minahan, the Melbourne-born son of a Chinese father and a white Australian mother who was arrested as a prohibited immigrant under the Immigration Restriction Act in 1908. Minahan had been taken to China by his father as a five-year-old boy in 1882 and failed the Dictation Test on his return to Australia 26 years later. After Minahan defeated the charge in the lower courts, the Commonwealth appealed to the High Court – an appeal they lost on the grounds that, despite his years overseas, Minahan had remained a member of the Australian community. Although the case is well known in historical and legal scholarship on Australian immigration and citizenship, existing work has focused primarily on the High Court judgements. This article provides a new perspective by following the progression of the case as a whole, from Minahan’s return to Australia in January 1908 to the High Court ruling in October that year, and placing it in the context of the transnational lives of Minahan, his father and their fellow Chinese Australians.
Highlights
This article tells the story of James Minahan, the Melbourne-born son of a Chinese father and a white Australian mother who was arrested as a prohibited immigrant under the Immigration Restriction Act in 1908
Minahan had been taken to China by his father as a five-year-old boy in 1882 and failed the Dictation Test on his return to Australia 26 years later
After Minahan defeated the charge in the lower courts, the Commonwealth appealed to the High Court – an appeal they lost on the grounds that, despite his years overseas, Minahan had remained a member of the Australian community
Summary
The High Court on appeal by the Commonwealth. In October 1908, the High Court found in Minahan’s favour – by law, Australia was his home and he was free to remain. A circular issued to Customs officers in April 1909 admonished them to carefully note the justices’ findings and ‘act strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Act’.61 It is unclear exactly what James Minahan was doing during the months it took for his case to be heard before the High Court, but he certainly remained in Melbourne, presumably living at Sun Nam Hie in Little Bourke Street. After his testimony before the Court of Petty Sessions at the end of March 1908, the only record of his doings is in the bill of costs prepared by his solicitor, which notes that Minahan and an interpreter met with Croft on two occasions in May. Minahan was awarded costs by the High Court – the legal fees for his appeal amounted to £125 6s, and he was entitled to £10 10s awarded in the lower court hearing, coming to a total of £135 16s. He was free to remain in Australia, but despite extensive searching, in the archives and on the ground in Australia and Sunwui, I have not yet ascertained if Minahan stayed in the country of his birth or returned to China once again
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
