Minister for Justice and Customs v Tervonen

[2007] FCA 2048

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Minister for Justice and Customs v Tervonen [2007] FCA 2048

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CUSTOMS v JAN TERVONEN

NSD2227 OF 2007

FLICK J
5 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD2227 OF 2007

BETWEEN:	MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CUSTOMS Applicant
AND:	JAN TERVONEN Respondent

JUDGE:	FLICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 DECEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The name of the Appellant be amended to read “Minster for Home Affairs”.

2.The hearing of the appeal be expedited.

3.Costs reserved.

4.Liberty to the parties to approach the appeal registrar with a view to fixing a date for the hearing of the appeal.

.

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	NSD2227 OF 2007

BETWEEN:	MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CUSTOMS Applicant
AND:	JAN TERVONEN Respondent

JUDGE:	FLICK J
DATE:	5 DECEMBER 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Presently before the Court is a Notice of Motion in which the Minister for Home Affairs is the Applicant.  The relief sought is an order expediting an appeal from a decision of Rares J given on 6 November 2007. 

2. The procedural background history to the application is somewhat complicated, but for present purposes can be set forth fairly briefly. On 18 August 2006, the then Minister for Justice and Customs issued a notice pursuant to s 16(1) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). Subsequent to that notice being issued, a Full Court of this Court handed down its decision in Williams v Minister for Justice and Customs [2007] FCAFC 33, 157 FCR 286. That decision had fundamental implications as to the way in which decisions under s 16 were to be made.

3. In response to that decision, a further Notice was issued under s 16(1) on 30 April 2007. Both of those s 16 notices were held to be invalid by Rares J in his Honour’s decision on 6 November 2007.

4. The Application for expedition before this Court raises two fundamental matters of importance, namely:

   1.whether or not Rares J went beyond the requirements imposed by s 16 and the Williams decision and in a manner which imposes unwarranted obligations upon the Minister; and

   2.the obligation imposed upon the Commonwealth by the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) to deal with requests from foreign countries expeditiously.

5. The requirement for an orderly and expeditious resolution of proceedings has been the subject of comment by Kirby J in Cabal v United Mexican States [2001] HCA 42 at [9], 180 ALR 593. If the decision of Rares J is to be given effect and, but for the resolution of a further s 16 notice which has been issued by the Minister, the Respondent may be entitled to be released from custody.

6. It is considered that the hearing of the appeal should be expedited. 

   ORDERS

7. The orders of the Court are:

   1.The name of the Appellant be amended to read “Minster for Home Affairs”.

   2.The hearing of the appeal be expedited.

   3.Costs reserved.

   4.Liberty to the parties to approach the appeal registrar with a view to fixing a date for the hearing of the appeal.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Flick.

Associate:

Dated:        28 December 2007

Counsel for the Applicant:	K C Morgan
Counsel for the Respondent:	D Ash
Date of Hearing:	5 December 2007
Date of Judgment:	5 December 2007