Johnson v Williams - [2000] FCA 3

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Johnson v Honourable Daryl Williams [2000] FCA 3
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – extradition – Attorney-General requested to withdraw request for extradition – decision based on misleading information – delay – fragmentation of the criminal process
Extradition Act 1989 (UK) s 7 and s 12
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 referred to
Caswell v Dairy Produce QuotaTribunal for England & Wales [1990] 2 AC 738 applied
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 cited
Flanagan v Commissioner of the AustralianFederal Police (1996) 60 FCR 149 applied
Harris v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (1994) 52 FCR 386 applied
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 cited
Leung v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 150 ALR 76 referred to
O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 applied
R v Fuller & Cummings (1997) 69 SASR 251 cited
MALCOLM KEITH JOHNSON V THE HONOURABLE DARYL ROBERT WILLIAMS (in his capacity as the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia) and THE HONOURABLE DUNCAN JAMES COLQUHOUN KERR (in his former capacity as Minister of State for Justice)
S 37 of 1999
JUDGES:      SPENDER, EMMETT & FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE:            5 JANUARY 2000
PLACE:         ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 37 of 1999

On appeal from a single justice of the Federal Court

BETWEEN:

MALCOLM KEITH JOHNSON
Appellant

AND:

THE HONOURABLE DARYL ROBERT WILLIAMS (in his capacity as Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia) and THE HONOURABLE DUNCAN JAMES COLQUHOUN KERR (in his former capacity as Minister of State for Justice)
Respondents

JUDGES:

SPENDER, EMMETT & FINKELSTEIN JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

5 JANUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE (via video-link to Adelaide)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.   The appeal be allowed.
2.   The orders of the trial judge be set aside.
3.    A writ of certiorari issue to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia quashing his decision not to withdraw the request for the extradition of the appellant.
4.   The costs of the appeal be taxed and when taxed paid by the Attorney-General to the appellant.
5.   The costs of the hearing below be reserved.
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 37 of 1999

On appeal from a single justice of the Federal Court

BETWEEN:

MALCOLM KEITH JOHNSON
Appellant

AND:

THE HONOURABLE DARYL ROBERT WILLIAMS (in his capacity as Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia) and THE HONOURABLE DUNCAN JAMES COLQUHOUN KERR (in his former capacity as Minister of State for Justice)
Respondents

JUDGES:

SPENDER, EMMETT & FINKELSTEIN JJ

DATE:

5 JANUARY 2000

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The appellant, with Michael John Fuller and Joseph Patrick Cummings, has been charged with one count of conspiracy to cheat and defraud, thirteen counts of aiding and abetting the fraudulent application of company property and fifteen counts of making improper use of his…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Johnson v Williams and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] FCA 3
Decision Date: 5 JANUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Johnson v Williams, the appellant, Johnson, sought to challenge the decision of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, represented by Williams, not to withdraw a request for his extradition. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Johnson argued that the decision was unlawful and that the Attorney-General had failed to consider relevant factors, including Johnson's health and the availability of alternative legal measures.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Attorney-General's decision was subject to judicial review and, if so, whether it was unlawful. The primary issue was whether the decision not to withdraw the extradition request was made in accordance with the law and whether the Attorney-General had exercised his discretion properly. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Attorney-General had failed to consider significant factors, such as Johnson's health and the potential for alternative legal measures.

The court found that the Attorney-General's decision was indeed subject to judicial review. It held that the decision was unlawful as the Attorney-General had failed to consider Johnson's health and the availability of alternative legal measures. The court was of the view that the Attorney-General's discretion was exercised in an irrational manner. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the orders of the trial judge were set aside, and a writ of certiorari was issued to the Attorney-General, quashing his decision. The costs of the appeal were to be paid by the Attorney-General to the appellant, and the costs of the hearing below were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The orders of the trial judge be set aside.

3. A writ of certiorari issue to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia quashing his decision not to withdraw the request for the extradition of the appellant.

4. The costs of the appeal be taxed and when taxed paid by the Attorney-General to the appellant.

5. The costs of the hearing below be reserved.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 37 of 1999

BETWEEN:	MALCOLM KEITH JOHNSON Appellant
AND:	THE HONOURABLE DARYL ROBERT WILLIAMS (in his capacity as Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia) and THE HONOURABLE DUNCAN JAMES COLQUHOUN KERR (in his former capacity as Minister of State for Justice) Respondents
JUDGES:	SPENDER, EMMETT & FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	5 JANUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE (via video-link to Adelaide)

JUDGES:	SPENDER, EMMETT & FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE:	5 JANUARY 2000
PLACE:	ADELAIDE