R v Lessur-Millar
Case
•
[1990] FCA 830
•23 Apr 1990
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Lessur-Millar [1990] FCA 830
[1990] FCA 830
23 Apr 1990
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Ricardo Lessur-Millar, also known as Walter Levinge, sought an order in the Federal Court of Australia to prohibit the continuation of criminal proceedings against him in New South Wales, arguing that his extradition from the United States was illegal. The respondent, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, argued that the proceeding should be dismissed or perpetually stayed, either on the basis of issue estoppel or as an abuse of process under Order 20 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules.
The court found that all material issues had been previously decided in New South Wales courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeal, and the High Court had refused special leave to appeal. The applicant's claims about the authenticity of an FBI document and his Mexican citizenship had also been considered in earlier proceedings. Lockhart J held that allowing the proceeding to continue would be vexatious and an abuse of process, as it would involve re-litigating issues already decided by higher courts. The court found that the proceeding was an abuse of process under Order 20 rule 2 and ordered it to be perpetually stayed. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
In summary, the Federal Court dismissed the applicant's claims, finding that the issues had already been fully considered and decided by other courts, and that allowing the proceeding to continue would be vexatious and an abuse of process. The proceeding was ordered to be perpetually stayed and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.
The court found that all material issues had been previously decided in New South Wales courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeal, and the High Court had refused special leave to appeal. The applicant's claims about the authenticity of an FBI document and his Mexican citizenship had also been considered in earlier proceedings. Lockhart J held that allowing the proceeding to continue would be vexatious and an abuse of process, as it would involve re-litigating issues already decided by higher courts. The court found that the proceeding was an abuse of process under Order 20 rule 2 and ordered it to be perpetually stayed. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
In summary, the Federal Court dismissed the applicant's claims, finding that the issues had already been fully considered and decided by other courts, and that allowing the proceeding to continue would be vexatious and an abuse of process. The proceeding was ordered to be perpetually stayed and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Abuse of Process
-
Jurisdiction
-
Res Judicata
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Lessur-Millar [1990] FCA 830
Most Recent Citation
McDonald v Colbran [2019] FCA 1937
Cases Citing This Decision
6
McDonald v Colbran
[2019] FCA 1937
McDonald v State of South Australia
[2011] FCA 297
Ravenor Overseas Inc Readhead, Phillip Martin and Ors
[1998] FCA 1363
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Burbank Australia Pty Ltd v Luzinat
[2000] VSC 128
The Age Corporation Ltd v Beran
[2005] NSWCA 289