Rahardja v the Republic of Indonesia S243/2000

The High Court of Australia considered an application by Mr. Rahardja for leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Federal Court. The dispute concerned the validity of a warrant issued under the *Extradition Act 1988* (Cth) for Mr. Rahardja's extradition to the Republic of Indonesia to face criminal charges. The Republic of Indonesia sought Mr. Rahardja's extradition pursuant to the *Extradition Act 1988* and the bilateral extradition treaty between Australia and Indonesia.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Full Federal Court had erred in upholding the validity of the extradition warrant. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the warrant, which was issued by the Attorney-General, was invalid by reason of the Attorney-General's alleged failure to consider certain exculpatory evidence that had been provided to him. This raised questions about the scope of the Attorney-General's discretion under the *Extradition Act* and the extent to which such discretion must accommodate evidence that might suggest innocence.

Gleeson CJ and Callinan J, in their joint reasons, held that the Attorney-General's discretion under section 18 of the *Extradition Act 1988* was not vitiated by the failure to consider the exculpatory material. Their Honours reasoned that the Act did not impose a positive obligation on the Attorney-General to conduct an independent inquiry into the merits of the charges or to weigh evidence suggesting innocence against the evidence supporting the request for extradition. The focus of the Attorney-General's role, as interpreted by the court, was to satisfy himself that the statutory requirements for extradition were met, including the existence of a valid treaty and a request from the requesting country. The court found that the Attorney-General had properly exercised his discretion in issuing the warrant.

Leave to appeal was refused.