FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Matson v Attorney-General [2022] FCA 790
File number: QUD 215 of 2022 Judgment of: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 24 June 2022 Catchwords: EXTRADITION – application for judicial review of decision by Attorney-General – whether Attorney-General has power to revoke decision to surrender decision under s 22 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) – where Attorney-General determined that he had no power to reconsider decision by Acting Attorney-General made under s 22 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) – held: Attorney-General has power (but no obligation) by necessary implication pursuant to s 33 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) to revoke surrender decision in conjunction with the power to revoke a surrender warrant – declarations made
EXTRADITION – bail – application for bail in application for judicial review of decision under Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) – where proceeding sought to compel Attorney-General to revoke surrender decision – where no power to grant bail under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) where relief sought in proceeding would not result in applicant being released from custody if successful – where Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) contemplates applicant being held in custody pending extradition – where no special circumstances justifying bail established in any event – bail refused
Legislation: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss 26, 33
Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) ss 19, 22, 23, 26
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 23
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
High Court Rules 2004 (Cth)
Cases cited: Brock v Minister for Home Affairs [2010] FCA 1301
Chan v Minister for Justice and Customs (2001) 108 FCR 65
Edwards v Santos Ltd (2011) 242 CLR 421
Foster v Minister for Customs and Justice (2000) 200 CLR 442
Matson v Attorney-General (Cth) [2021] FCA 161
Matson v Attorney-General (Cth) [2022] FCA 461
Matson v Attorney-General (Cth) (No 2) [2022] FCA 213
Matson v Buckingham [2022] FCA 777
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Makasa (2021) 270 CLR 430
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Kurtovic (1990) 21 FCR 193
Minister for Indigenous Affairs v MJD Foundation Ltd (2017) 250 FCR 31
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Snedden v Minister for Justice for the Commonwealth (2014) 230 FCR 82
Division: General Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 57 Date of hearing: 24 June 2022 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G Del Villar QC with Mr M McKechnie Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
QUD 215 of 2022 BETWEEN: BARON MATSON
Applicant
AND: THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
24 JUNE 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.In so far as the same may be necessary, the applicant be granted an extension of…
Continue reading Matson v Attorney-General
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Matson v Attorney-General [2022] FCA 790
- Case
- [2022] FCA 790
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Attorney-General had the power to revoke a surrender decision under section 22 of the Extradition Act, and if so, whether this power was mandatory or discretionary. The court also had to determine if the applicant was entitled to bail pending the outcome of the judicial review. The court considered whether the Attorney-General's power to revoke a surrender warrant under section 26 of the Extradition Act implied a corresponding power to revoke a surrender decision, and if this power was mandatory or discretionary.
The court found that the Attorney-General had the power to revoke a surrender decision by necessary implication, pursuant to section 33 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). This power was found to be in conjunction with the power to revoke a surrender warrant under section 26 of the Extradition Act. The court held that this power was discretionary, not mandatory. Regarding the bail application, the court found that the applicant was not entitled to bail because the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) did not provide for bail in such circumstances, and no special circumstances justified granting bail.
The court made several declarations and orders. Firstly, it declared that the Attorney-General has the power to revoke a surrender decision, but this power is not mandatory. Secondly, the court dismissed the applicant's application for bail. Thirdly, the court granted an extension of time for the filing of the application for judicial review, with the need for the filing and service of that application being dispensed with. Lastly, the Attorney-General undertook to the Court that he would not execute the surrender warrant until he had reconsidered the applicant's letter of 11 August 2020 in light of the Court's declaration.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. In so far as the same may be necessary, the applicant be granted an extension of time to the date of the filing of the application for an extension of time in respect of an application for the review of the respondent’s decision, evidenced by his response in December 2022 to the applicant’s letter of 11 August 2020, with the need for the filing and service of that application being dispensed with.
2. The application for bail be dismissed.
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
3. On the true construction of ss 22 and 26 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) and s 33(3)of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth):
(a) the respondent has power, by necessary implication, to revoke a surrender decision in conjunction with a decision to revoke a surrender warrant; and
(b) the respondent is not subject to an obligation to consider whether to exercise that power.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
4. The respondent, by his counsel, has undertaken to the Court that the respondent will not execute the surrender warrant until such time as the respondent has reconsidered the applicant’s letter of 11 August 2020 in light of the declaration made by the Court.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.