Linhart, H. & Anor v Elms, E.E. & Ors [1987] FCA 763

Linhart, H. & Anor v Elms, E.E. & Ors [1987] FCA 763

The warrants of committal were valid in relation to the first and second sets of charges as the documents set out sufficient detail of the acts and omissions alleged; however, for the third set of charges relating to fraudulent misrepresentations, the documents failed to specify how or in what manner the alleged false pretences were made, rendering the warrants invalid to that extent.

Parties
Applicant: Harald Rolf Linhart; Applicant: Paula Bongardt; First Respondent: Elwyn Edgard Ernest Elms; Second Respondent: The Honourable Lionel Bowen, Her Majesty's Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia; Third Respondent: The Federal Republic of Germany
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 1987
Procedural Posture
Extradition Review / Judicial Review of Committal Warrants
Outcome
Warrants partly invalid, partly valid
Legal Topics
Sufficiency of Extradition Warrants, Double Criminality, Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act Application
Extradition Criminal Law Administrative Law Sufficiency of Extradition Warrants Double Criminality Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act Application

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harald Rolf Linhart

Applicant

Paula Bongardt

Applicant

Elwyn Edgard Ernest Elms

First Respondent

The Honourable Lionel Bowen, Her Majesty's Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

The Federal Republic of Germany

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Review / Judicial Review of Committal Warrants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the warrants of committal set out all acts or omissions as required by s.17(6)(a)(i)(C) of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966
  2. 2 Whether the principle of double criminality under s.4(1A) of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 was satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The warrants of committal were valid in relation to the first and second sets of charges as the documents set out sufficient detail of the acts and omissions alleged; however, for the third set of charges relating to fraudulent misrepresentations, the documents failed to specify how or in what manner the alleged false pretences were made, rendering the warrants invalid to that extent.

Court Disposition

Warrants partly invalid, partly valid

Orders

  • Declare the warrants of committal invalid to the extent they are based on the charges referred to in recital (a)(1ii) of the warrants
  • Otherwise declare the warrants valid