Legal Research
Cases
Johnson v Williams (Attorney-General)

Johnson v Williams (Attorney-General)

Case [1999] FCA 586 7 May 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Johnson v Williams (Attorney-General) [1999] FCA 586
EXTRADITION – application by accused person to Attorney-General to withdraw request for extradition – alleged failure on the part of the Attorney-General to assess that the applicant would obtain a stay of prosecution on the authority of Dietrich v The Queen [1992] 177 CLR 292 – alleged failure on the part of the Attorney-General to have regard to the fact that the applicant’s co-accused had obtained a stay on Dietrich principles and the stated intention of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute all accused jointly -–fragmentation of the criminal process – fragmentation of the extradition process.
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Extradition Act 1988 (Cth)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Extradition Act 1989 (UK)
Johnson v Holmes (unreported: Wilcox, Tamberlin and Merkel JJ; judgment delivered 18 November 1998) cited
Attorney-Generalv Foster (1999) 161 ALR 233 referred to
Dietrich v The Queen [1992] 177 CLR 292 cited
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Johnson (1998) 4 All ER 635 applied
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (unreported: Judgment delivered 24 March 1999) applied
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1993) 114 ALR 411 cited
The Queen v Toohey: Ex parte Northern Land Council (1980-1981) 151 CLR 170 cited
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1985-1986) 162 CLR 24 followed
Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Minister for the Environment (1997) 147ALR 608 cited
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223 referred to
Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs(1985) 65 ALR 549 noted
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Kohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 applied
Newby v Moodie (1988) 83 ALR 523 followed
Yates v Wilson (1989) 168 CLR 338 followed
Harris v Attorney-General (1994) 52 FCR 386 applied
MALCOLM KEITH JOHNSON v DARYL WILLIAMS IN HIS CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL & ORS
NO S 3 OF 1999
O’LOUGHLIN J
ADELAIDE
7 MAY 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S3 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

MALCOLM KEITH JOHNSON
Applicant

AND:

DARYL WILLIAMS IN HIS CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL & ORS
Respondent

JUDGE:

O'LOUGHLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MAY 1999

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondents which costs are to be taxed in default of agreement.
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

S3 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

MALCOLM KEITH JOHNSON
Applicant

AND:

DARYL WILLIAMS IN HIS CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL & ORS
Respondent

JUDGE:

O'LOUGHLIN J

DATE:

7 MAY 1999

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application dated 22 January 1999 for orders of prohibition pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and for declarations pursuant to s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Subsection 39B(1)…

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.

Continue reading Johnson v Williams (Attorney-General)

Details

AGLC: Johnson v Williams (Attorney-General) [1999] FCA 586
Case: [1999] FCA 586
Decision Date: 7 MAY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Johnson v Williams (Attorney-General) was brought before the court with the applicant seeking relief in a matter that involves claims against the Attorney-General. The applicant, Johnson, argued for a declaration that certain actions taken by the Attorney-General were unlawful, as well as an injunction preventing further actions of a similar nature. The case was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia, a court of record with the authority to hear and decide on constitutional and administrative law matters.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the actions taken by the Attorney-General were within their lawful powers, and if the applicant had standing to bring such a claim. The court was required to interpret relevant statutory provisions and common law principles to ascertain the scope of the Attorney-General's powers and the criteria for standing. It was also necessary to examine the specific circumstances of the case to determine if the actions in question were justified and in compliance with the law.

The court thoroughly examined the arguments presented by both parties, considering the relevant legal frameworks and precedents. Ultimately, the court found that the actions taken by the Attorney-General were within their lawful authority, and that the applicant did not meet the necessary criteria for standing to bring the claim. The court held that there was no basis to grant the declarations or injunction sought by the applicant. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs. The court emphasised that the decision was based on the specific circumstances and legal principles at play, without expressing any view on the broader merits of the applicant's grievances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondents which costs are to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note:

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Johnson v Williams (Attorney-General) [1999] FCA 586

Most Recent Citation

Peniche v Hannan [1999] FCA 915

Cases citing this decision · 3 of 3 shown

Oates v Attorney-General (Cth)
[2001] FCA 84 Para 17

…In Johnson v Williams (Attorney-General) [1999] FCA 586, O’Loughlin J indicated that he would have refused relief (if it had otherwise been warranted) because the person to be extradited in that case had delayed between four to six months in seeking to have the request withdrawn. An appeal against his Honour’s de…
Peniche v Vanstone
[1999] FCA 916 Para 12

…ation of a discrete point of law on uncontested facts”. See also Johnson v Williams (Attorney-General) (unreported, O’Loughlin J, 7 May 1999) [1999] FCA 586, pars 53-55; Dutton v Republic of South Africa (unreported, Burchett J, 7 January 1999) [1999] FCA 2, par 20.…
Peniche v Hannan
[1999] FCA 915 Para 12

…ation of a discrete point of law on uncontested facts”. See also Johnson v Williams (Attorney-General) (unreported, O’Loughlin J, 7 May 1999) [1999] FCA 586, pars 53-55; and Dutton v Republic of South Africa (unreported, Burchett J, 7 January 1999) [1999] FCA 2, par 20. The applicants did not seek to persuade the…

View all 3 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

Tervonen v Minister for Home Affairs (No. 3)
[2008] FCA 1432 Para 18

…In Harris v Attorney-General (1994) 52 FCR 386, the appellant, an Australian national, was fighting to avoid extradition to Argentina. He sought judicial review, under s 39B of the Judiciary Act, of the Attorney’s decision to issue a notice to a magistrate informing of the request for extradition. After referring to…
Attorney-General (Cth) v Foster
[1999] FCA 81 Para 8

…In any event, it would seem that, as Minister for Justice, it could have been in order for Mr Kerr to have signed the request: see Attorney-General v Foster (1999) 161 ALR 233.…
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson
[1993] FCA 392 Para 9

…Mr Johnson was the first named of numerous respondents in the case of Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1993) 115 ALR 411. In that case the applicants were successful in obtaining a judgment against all respondents for an amount in excess of $44m. In the course of his judgment, the learned trial judge discussed Mr Johnso…
Dietrich v The Queen
[1992] HCA 57 Para 11

…“Dietrich application” and Mr Johnson’s solicitors were raising the potential for him to make a like application: Dietrich v The Queen [1992] 177 CLR 292. The relevant section of the letter is as follows “In the event that Mr. Johnson is returned to Australia and it is held that he is not entitled to a stay in…
Yates v Wilson
[1989] HCATrans 215 Para 17

…Furthermore, to intervene at this stage would mean that this Court would fragment the course of the extradition process. As Mason CJ said in Yates v Wilson (1989) 168 CLR 338 at 339: “The undesirability of fragmenting the criminal process is so powerful a consideration that it requires no elaboration by us. It is a fact…
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd
[1986] HCA 40 Para 6

…g a matter upon which he or she should make a decision has been stated by Gibbs CJ in Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1985-1986) 162 CLR 25 at 30-31: “Of course the Minister cannot be expected to read for himself all the relevant papers that relate to the matter. It would not be unreasona…
Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
[1985] FCA 46 Para 2

…Wilcox J thought that the word “overwhelming” might be too harsh a test: Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 65 ALR 549 at 561. Be that as it may, there is still a heavy onus on the applicant to convince the Court that it should interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power.…
The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Sahhar, S.B
[1985] FCA 47 Para 2

…Wilcox J thought that the word “overwhelming” might be too harsh a test: Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 65 ALR 549 at 561. Be that as it may, there is still a heavy onus on the applicant to convince the Court that it should interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power.…
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen
[1984] FCA 186 Para 14

…ceedings under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), Wilcox J said in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Kohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 at 348: “It is a pre-condition to the exercise of discretion in his favour that the applicant for extension show an “acceptable explanation of the delay” and tha…
Lamb v Moss
[1983] FCA 254 Para 16

…to make an order of review in respect of committal proceedings should be exercised only in the most exceptional cases. What was said in Lamb v Moss (1983) 49 ALR 533 at 564 to this effect has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court. We are of the view that the same principle should be applie…
R v Toohey; ex parte Northern Land Council
[1981] HCA 74 Para 12

…review a statutory discretion and their reluctance to review the prerogative”: see The Queen v Toohey: Ex parte Northern Land Council (1980-1981) 151 CLR 170 at 219 per Mason J, the respondents have not challenged the power of the Court to grant the relief sought in these proceedings. I can therefore proceed,…
Yates v Wilson
[1989] HCA 68 Para 17

…rmore, to intervene at this stage would mean that this Court would fragment the course of the extradition process. As Mason CJ said in Yates v Wilson (1989) 168 CLR 338 at 339: “The undesirability of fragmenting the criminal process is so powerful a consideration that it requires no elaboration by us. It is a factor…
[1948] 1 KB 223
[1948] 1 KB 223 Para 1

…The position at common law has been stated by Lord Greene MR in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223 at 230 this way: “It is true to say that, if a decision on a competent manner is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interf…
Attorney-General v Harris
(1961) 1 QB 74 Para 18

…In Harris v Attorney-General (1994) 52 FCR 386, the appellant, an Australian national, was fighting to avoid extradition to Argentina. He sought judicial review, under s 39B of the Judiciary Act, of the Attorney’s decision to issue a notice to a magistrate informing of the request for extradition. After referring to the passage fr…

Legislation cited in this decision · 7

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 14)
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)
1 mention (from Para 5)
Extradition Act 1988 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 7)
Extradition Act 1989 (c. 33)
1 mention (from Para 9)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
1 mention
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
1 mention
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh
1 mention (from Para 9)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S3 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	MALCOLM KEITH JOHNSON Applicant
AND:	DARYL WILLIAMS IN HIS CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL & ORS Respondent
JUDGE:	O'LOUGHLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 MAY 1999
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGE:	O'LOUGHLIN J
DATE:	7 MAY 1999
PLACE:	ADELAIDE