Rivera v Minister for Justice & Customs

[2007] HCATrans 539

[2007] HCATrans 539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S390 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

LAWRENCE RIVERA

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CUSTOMS

Respondent

HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2007, AT 9.34 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR S.F. VORREITER:   If your Honour pleases, I appear for the respondent, or the applicant in the summons.  (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR:   The Deputy Registrar has been in contact with the applicant in the proceedings.  He is in custody and he has informed the Registrar he will not be attending today.

MR VORREITER:   That is my understanding.

HIS HONOUR:   I need not trouble you, Mr Vorreiter, just take a seat.  Just one thing though, you presumably read the affidavit of Kristy Lee Alexander filed on 29 August 2007?

MR VORREITER:   I do.

HIS HONOUR:   This is an application by the respondent, the Minister, for expedition of the applicant’s application for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.  If that application fails, or if an appeal fails, the applicant will be extradited to the United States of America to be tried for murder.

That country’s first request in relation to the extradition of the applicant was made more than five years ago.  The applicant has been uniformly unsuccessful in his challenges to the numerous decisions which have been adverse to him since that time.  On 6 September 2007 the applicant informed a Deputy Registrar of his inability either to attend Court today or to supply written submissions.  However, even if he opposed the application for expedition, that would be a ground for granting it.

Kristy Lee Alexander, a solicitor, has sworn an affidavit in which she said in paragraphs 3(n) and (o):

For reasons of comity, extradition countries expect requests for extradition to be processed by the requested country as expeditiously as possible.  Mr Rivera has taken advantage of every avenue of review and appeal under the [Extradition Act 1988 (Cth)] and s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) . . .

Mr Rivera is charged in the State of California with the serious criminal charge of murder.  Criminal proceedings should be determined as quickly as possible in order to maximise the chances of justice being done to both the accused and the prosecution authorities in California.  The community also has an interest in ensuring that persons who commit offences are convicted.  Delay, particularly extensive delay, diminishes the prospects of these various interests being realised.

I agree and I do not see how the contrary could be argued.  Accordingly, I make the following orders:

1.That the applicant’s application for special leave to appeal be expedited.

2.That the applicant’s application for special leave to appeal be referred to a panel of two Justices for consideration under rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules as early as possible.

That leaves costs.  Is it appropriate that they be reserved?

MR VORREITER:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:

3.That the costs of this application be reserved.

Are those orders satisfactory?

MR VORREITER:   They are.  Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   There is nothing further?

MR VORREITER:   Nothing further.

HIS HONOUR:   Very well.  Thank you.

AT 9.38 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED