Liem v Republic of Indonesia

Liem applied for judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Justice, under the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), to issue a notice to surrender him to the Republic of Indonesia. The application was also directed at a decision by Magistrate Price that the applicant was eligible for surrender. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision to issue the surrender notice was lawful, and whether the magistrate's decision that the applicant was eligible for surrender was a nullity. The applicant contended that the Minister's decision was flawed because he was not "accused of having committed the offences" and that the Minister did not properly consider whether he was "accused of having committed the offences" due to insufficient material. The applicant also argued that the Minister's failure to consider these issues denied him procedural fairness. The Court found that it was open to the Minister to conclude that the applicant was "accused of having committed the offences" and thus an "extraditable person". The material before the Minister was sufficient to base this conclusion. The Court also held that no obligation arose for the Minister to provide procedural fairness as there was no requirement to consider whether the applicant was "accused of having committed the offences". The magistrate's decision that the applicant was eligible for surrender was therefore not a nullity. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant also filed a statutory appeal under the Extradition Act against the magistrate's decision that he was eligible for surrender. The applicant alleged that the magistrate erred in considering the police investigators' report to be part of the statement of conduct, in concluding that the dual criminality requirement was satisfied, and in holding that Indonesia had provided a requisite statement of conduct. The Court found that there was no error in the magistrate's consideration of the police investigators' report, in concluding that dual criminality was satisfied, or in holding that a satisfactory statement of conduct was provided. The statutory appeal was dismissed. The orders of the Court were that the amended originating application be dismissed with costs and that the orders made by the magistrate on 18 May 2017 be confirmed.