Rivera v Minister for Justice and Customs [2006] FCA 1784

Rivera v Minister for Justice and Customs [2006] FCA 1784

The application failed because the applicant did not demonstrate jurisdictional or other reviewable error in the Minister's surrender determination. There was material before the Minister, including affidavits concerning Californian law and assurances from United States authorities, indicating that special circumstances had not been charged and that the death penalty would not be sought or imposed. The Minister could therefore be satisfied that any required undertaking under s 22(3)(c) had the necessary character. The applicant was not entitled as a general matter to see and comment on the Departmental submissions, no oral inquiry was required, and the grounds alleging bad faith, bias,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) for Judicial Review of a Surrender Determination Under S 22(2) of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth) / Final Hearing; Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['surrender Determination' 'death Penalty Undertaking' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'extradition Objection' 'torture' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias']
['extradition' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['surrender Determination' 'death Penalty Undertaking' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'extradition Objection' 'torture' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias']

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 Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) for Judicial Review of a Surrender Determination Under S 22(2) of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth) / Final Hearing; Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the death penalty undertaking complied with s 22(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicant was entitled to be provided with and to comment on Departmental submissions placed before the Minister.' 'Whether procedural fairness required an oral inquiry or hearing before the Minister made the surrender determination.' 'Whether the extradition request was made in bad faith.' "Whether the Minister's decision was affected by apprehended bias." 'Whether the Minister made reviewable error in relation to claims that the applicant would be subjected to torture or prejudiced at trial by reason of race or religion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the applicant did not demonstrate jurisdictional or other reviewable error in the Minister's surrender determination. There was material before the Minister, including affidavits concerning Californian law and assurances from United States authorities, indicating that special circumstances had not been charged and that the death penalty would not be sought or imposed. The Minister could therefore be satisfied that any required undertaking under s 22(3)(c) had the necessary character. The applicant was not entitled as a general matter to see and comment on the Departmental submissions, no oral inquiry was required, and the grounds alleging bad faith, bias,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs."]