Minister for Home Affairs v Tervonen (No 2)

Case [2008] FCAFC 32


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Minister for Home Affairs v Tervonen (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 32

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS v JAN TERVONEN (NO 2)
NSD 2227 OF 2007

JACOBSON, BENNETT & BUCHANAN JJ
10 MARCH 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2227 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
Appellant

AND:

JAN TERVONEN
Respondent

JUDGES:

JACOBSON, BENNETT AND BUCHANAN

DATE OF ORDER:

10 MARCH 2008

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1.  Order 3 made on 6 March 2007 be set aside.

2. It be declared that the document dated 30 April 2007 signed by Senator Johnston is not a valid notice under s 16(1) of the Extradition Act 1988 with respect to the offences listed in [55], [57] and [58].

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2227 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
Appellant

AND:

JAN TERVONEN
Respondent

JUDGES:

JACOBSON, BENNETT AND BUCHANAN

DATE:

10 MARCH 2008

PLACE:

SYDNEY

SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. In [78] of our reasons given on 6 March 2008 (see Minister for Home Affairs v Tervonen [2008] FCAFC 24), we set out our understanding of the paragraphs of the Amended Notice that were conceded by the Minister. This was reflected in [96] and in Order 3.

  2. We delayed entry of Order 3 for 72 hours in case our understanding was not correct.

  3. We have now been informed by the Minister’s solicitors that [24] to [50] of the Amended Notice were not conceded and that Mr Ash, counsel for the respondent, concurs that the abovementioned paragraphs of our reasons and Order 3 should be amended accordingly.

  4. It follows that [78] and [96] of our reasons are amended to delete reference to [24]-[50] of the Amended Notice.  The same amendment will be made to Order 3.

  5. For clarity, our orders will be that we set aside Order 3 made on 6 March 2008 and, in lieu thereof, order that it be declared that the document dated 30 April 2007 signed by Senator Johnston is not a valid notice under s 16(1) of the Extradition Act 1988 with respect to the offences listed in [55], [57] and [58].

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Supplementary Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated:            10 March 2008

Counsel for the Appellant:

Mr R Beech-Jones SC with Ms K Morgan

Solicitor for the Appellant:

Blake Dawson

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr D Ash

Date of Hearing:

15 February 2008

Date of Judgment:

10 March 2008

Details
AGLC
Minister for Home Affairs v Tervonen (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 32
Case
[2008] FCAFC 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Minister for Home Affairs v Tervonen (No 2), the court was asked to determine the validity of a notice issued under the Extradition Act 1988. The applicant, Tervonen, sought to challenge the validity of a notice signed by Senator Johnston, which purported to extradite him to the United States for alleged criminal activities. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the Extradition Act and the validity of the notice in light of certain legal requirements.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of section 16(1) of the Extradition Act, specifically whether the document signed by Senator Johnston complied with the legal requirements for a valid notice of intention to request extradition. This included examining whether the document was properly executed and whether it contained the necessary information to support the extradition request. The court also needed to consider the implications of any procedural defects on the validity of the notice.

The court found that there were significant procedural defects in the execution of the notice. The document signed by Senator Johnston was not in line with the legal requirements as it did not properly identify the offences for which extradition was sought. The court held that the notice was not a valid notice under section 16(1) of the Extradition Act. Consequently, the court set aside the earlier order that had been made on 6 March 2007 and declared the notice to be invalid with respect to the specified offences.

The court's final orders included setting aside Order 3 made on 6 March 2007 and declaring that the document dated 30 April 2007 signed by Senator Johnston was not a valid notice under section 16(1) of the Extradition Act for the specified offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Order 3 made on 6 March 2007 be set aside.

2. It be declared that the document dated 30 April 2007 signed by Senator Johnston is not a valid notice under s 16(1) of the Extradition Act 1988 with respect to the offences listed in [55], [57] and [58].

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.