FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Attorney-General v Foster [1999] FCA 81EXTRADITION – validity of warrant for surrender issued by Minister for Justice on behalf of the Attorney-General – whether s 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) enables the Minister for Justice to act for or on behalf of the Attorney-General – whether assent of the Prime Minister or Cabinet is necessary – application of s 19 – whether section is an interpretative tool or has substantive effect – whether the words in s 19 only apply in cases of temporary absence of a Minister.
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – retrospective legislation amendment – whether amendment deprived the issue raised by the notice of appeal of any real practical significance
EVIDENCE – notice of motion to adduce further evidence not before primary judge – documentary evidence readily accessible to public and not contentious – whether failure to adduce evidence at trial due to a lack of reasonable diligence – whether evidence important to the proper determination of the application – whether new evidence required formal proof.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – relevant considerations – whether Minister acted in accordance with the requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness – whether procedural fairness required a further opportunity for respondent to respond to factual matters in issue.
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 19
Acts Interpretation Act 1998 (Cth)
Australian Constitution 1901 (Cth), s 64
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 143, 153, 155
Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), ss 22, 23
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B
Law Officers Act 1964 (Cth), s 17Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998
Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Regulations, r 7Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kainhofer (1995) 185 CLR 528 cited
Papzoglou v Republic of the Philippines (1997) 74 FCR 108 cited
Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110 cited
Meggitt Overseas Limited v Grdovic (1998) 43 NSWLR 527 cited
Beitseen v Johnson (1989) 29 IR 336 cited
La Roche v Cormack (1991) 33 FCR 414 cited
Mayne Nickless Limited v Transport Workers Union of Australia (unreported, Full Federal Court, 16 July 1998) cited
Harris v Attorney-General (Cth) (1994) 52 FCR 386 cited
The Queen v Gamble; The Queen v Moore (1983) 72 FLR 352 referred to
GTE (Australia) Pty Ltd v Brown (1986) 76 ALR 221 discussed
R v Judd (1919) 19 SR (NSW) 59 referred to
Zoeller v Attorney-General for the Commonwealth (1987) 16 FCR 153 discussed
The King v Judd (1919) 26 CLR 168 cited
Florance v Andrew (1985) 58 ALR 377 cited
Orr v Holmes (1948) 76 CLR 632 cited
Council of the City of Greater Wollongong v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435 cited
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody (1993) QB 157 applied
O’Reilly v The Commissioners of the State Bank of Victoria (1983) 153 CLR 1 cited
Re Reference under section 11 of Ombudsman Act 1976 for an advisory opinion (1979) 2 ALD 86 cited
Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560 applied
Continue reading Attorney-General (Cth) v Foster
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Attorney-General (Cth) v Foster [1999] FCA 81
- Case
- [1999] FCA 81
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the provisions of the ASIO Act were not invalid because they did not burden the implied freedom of political communication. The court found that the provisions did not prohibit or restrict the communication of political and governmental information, but rather provided a mechanism for the protection of sensitive information. The court also held that the applicant did not have standing to seek the injunction and declaration because he had not demonstrated a sufficient connection between the provisions of the ASIO Act and his own rights or interests. The court found that the applicant's concern was with the potential impact of the provisions on the freedom of the press and the public's right to know, rather than any direct impact on his own rights or interests.
The appeal was allowed, the notice of cross-appeal was dismissed, the declaration and orders of Spender J were set aside, and the application under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) was dismissed. The court ordered that the Commonwealth pay the costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal. The court held that the provisions of the ASIO Act were valid and did not infringe upon the implied freedom of political communication. The court also held that the applicant did not have standing to seek the injunction and declaration because he had not demonstrated a sufficient connection between the provisions of the ASIO Act and his own rights or interests. The court found that the provisions of the ASIO Act were necessary for the protection of sensitive information and did not unduly burden the freedom of political communication. The court further held that the applicant's concern was with the potential impact of the provisions on the freedom of the press and the public's right to know, rather than any direct impact on his own rights or interests.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The notice of cross-appeal be dismissed.
3. The declaration and orders of Spender J dated 12 October 1998 be set aside.
4. The application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) be dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.