Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part VIII. Imperial unity and imperial co-operation

Collection:: Economics Books

1454 IMPERIAL UNITY [PART VIII lian nationality by the High Court of Australia! but it does recognize that a person has a home of his own, and that such a person if he returns to that home is not an immigrant whose entry can be regulated by the Commonwealth under its general power to regulate immigration. There is also some recognition of it in the New Zealand immigration law which, as a rule, though not always, allows a domiciled New Zea- lander to return to the country after absence, and the immi- gration bill of the Union of 1911 also recognizes this principle. There are, of course, other manifestations of the doctrine : it was at one time held in the Canadian Courts 2 that Canada could punish bigamy committed outside Canada by a British subject resident there, and Lefroy ® makes out that this is consistent with the decision of the Privy Council in Macleod v. Attorney-General for New South Wales,* by holding that the invalidity of the conviction in the latter case was due to the fact that the Act was held to be in too wide terms as applying to any persons and not merely to British subjects domiciled in New South Wales. This interpretation of the statute, besides being very far from being supported by the language of the Court, is open to the fatal objection that if this were the view taken by the Court they would have dealt with the question of domicile in the case of Macleod which was discussed in the Court below. But in New Zealand the tendency clearly is for the Supreme Court to hold that a New Zealander is subject over all the world to the jurisdiction of New Zealand, and that thus New Zealand has a special and peculiar nationality of its own adherent to it.5 Cf. 4C. L.R. 949, at p. 951; 7C.L. R. 277, at p. 288. But contrast Mr. Pearce’s views in Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 1910, pp. 4326 seq. ® Reg. v. Brierly, 14 0. R. 525 ; 4 Cart. 665 ; in re Criminal Code, Bigamy Sections, 27 S. C. R. 461. * Legislative Power in Canada, p. 329. * [1891] A. C. 455. Lefroy’s view is supported by én re Criminal Code, Bigamy Sections, 27 S. C. R. 461. § Cf. in re Award of Wellington Cooks and Stewards’ Union, 26 N. Z. L. R. 394. Jenkyns, British Rule and Jurisdiction, p. 31, seems to hold this view, relying on a misunderstanding of 57 & 58 Vict. ¢. 60,5. 265. The reference on p. 27, n. 3, to 9 Geo. IV. c. 31 as justifying the trial of bigamy committed outside a Colony in a Colony is a blunder.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation