Tervonen v Finland [2008] FCA 99

Tervonen v Finland [2008] FCA 99

The application failed because the writ was not directed to persons having custody or control of the Applicant, and in any event the lawfulness of the Applicant's detention was established by the Order For Arrest made on 21 December 2007, the order of Rares J made on 24 December 2007, and the Full Court order made on 15 February 2008, none of which was shown to be invalid or a nullity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus in Extradition Proceedings / Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay the costs of the First Respondent.
Legal Topics
['lawfulness of Detention' 'custody or Control for Habeas Corpus' 'extradition Act 1988 (cth) Procedure']
['extradition' 'habeas Corpus'] ['lawfulness of Detention' 'custody or Control for Habeas Corpus' 'extradition Act 1988 (cth) Procedure']

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

Application Seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus in Extradition Proceedings / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application for habeas corpus was properly directed to persons with custody or control of the Applicant.' "Whether the Applicant's detention was lawful in light of the Order For Arrest and subsequent court orders."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the writ was not directed to persons having custody or control of the Applicant, and in any event the lawfulness of the Applicant's detention was established by the Order For Arrest made on 21 December 2007, the order of Rares J made on 24 December 2007, and the Full Court order made on 15 February 2008, none of which was shown to be invalid or a nullity.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay the costs of the First Respondent.

Orders

  • ['The Application be dismissed.' 'The Applicant to pay the costs of the First Respondent.']