Attorney-General (Cth) v Tse Chu-Fai

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the Attorney-General (Cth) against a decision concerning the extradition of Tse Chu-Fai. The dispute centred on whether Hong Kong, as specified in the Extradition (Hong Kong) Regulations, constituted an "extradition country" for the purposes of an arrest warrant application, particularly in light of the handover of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China (PRC) on 1 July 1997.

The legal issues before the Court were whether "Hong Kong" as defined in the Regulations was a territory for whose international relations a country was responsible, and whether the specification of "Hong Kong" in the Regulations, which commenced on 29 June 1997, referred to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the PRC from 1 July 1997 onwards. The Court also had to determine the admissibility and effect of a certificate issued by the Minister for Foreign Affairs regarding Australia's dealings with the PRC concerning Hong Kong's international relations.

The Court reasoned that a certificate from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, stating that Australia dealt with the PRC on the footing that it was responsible for the international relations of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as at 9 September 1997, should have been admitted. It was a reasonable inference that this state of affairs existed on 14 July 1997, the date of the extradition request. However, the Court held that it remained for the lower court, considering the factual background and the terms of the Basic Law, to construe and apply the definition of "extradition country" and the term "Hong Kong" in the Regulations.

The High Court remitted the cause to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales for the making of orders to give effect to its reasons. The Court of Appeal was directed to allow the appeal, order the first respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, and set aside the orders for the first respondent's release from custody and the appellant to pay the first respondent's costs. Instead, the summons filed on 7 August 1997 was to be dismissed with costs.