Tervonen v Minister for Justice and Customs [2007] FCA 464

Tervonen v Minister for Justice and Customs [2007] FCA 464

Interlocutory relief was refused because, on the evidence then before the Court, the five impugned warrants prima facie satisfied Art 7 r 2 of the amended Australia-Finland extradition treaty and supported the Minister's formation of the s 16 opinion, while the applicant's further contentions required fuller evidence and could be raised before the magistrate under s 19 or at a later review stage. Granting relief would undesirably fragment the extradition process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of a Notice Under S 16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth) / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction Restraining Proceedings Under S 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief refused.
Legal Topics
['extradition Notice' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'extraditable Person' 'ministerial Opinion' 'fragmentation of Criminal Process' 'australia Finland Extradition Treaty']
['extradition' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['extradition Notice' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'extraditable Person' 'ministerial Opinion' 'fragmentation of Criminal Process' 'australia Finland Extradition Treaty']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of a Notice Under S 16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth) / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction Restraining Proceedings Under S 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Minister could form the opinion required by s 16(2) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) that Mr Tervonen was an extraditable person in relation to Finland on the basis of the five impugned warrants.' 'Whether the five impugned Finnish warrants showed that Mr Tervonen was accused of offences or merely sought for pre-trial investigation.' 'Whether the absence of appended claims for arrest meant the material before the Minister was insufficient.' 'Whether interlocutory relief should be granted to restrain the s 19 extradition proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Interlocutory relief was refused because, on the evidence then before the Court, the five impugned warrants prima facie satisfied Art 7 r 2 of the amended Australia-Finland extradition treaty and supported the Minister's formation of the s 16 opinion, while the applicant's further contentions required fuller evidence and could be raised before the magistrate under s 19 or at a later review stage. Granting relief would undesirably fragment the extradition process.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for interlocutory relief is refused.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the first and third respondents of today.' 'Unless the applicant files a notice of motion on or before 27 March 2007 returnable for 28 March 2007 seeking to continue the proceedings as against the State of Finland on 28 March...