Johnson, Malcolm Keith v Holmes, Ralph Murray & Ors [1997] FCA 1069

Johnson, Malcolm Keith v Holmes, Ralph Murray & Ors [1997] FCA 1069

The application for judicial review was not made within a reasonable time after the applicant became aware of the relevant decisions, no satisfactory explanation for the delay was provided, and, applying the criteria and considerations in section 11 of the Judicial Review Act and relevant case law, the Court's discretion was exercised to refuse to entertain the application.

Parties
Applicant: Malcolm Keith Johnson; First Respondent: Ralph Murray Holmes; Second Respondent: National Crime Authority; Third Respondent: The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Determination of Whether to Entertain Application Given Alleged Delay
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review—reasonable Time to Bring Application, Prosecution Decisions, Extradition Process, Delay in Legal Proceedings
Administrative Law Criminal Law Judicial Review—reasonable Time to Bring Application Prosecution Decisions Extradition Process Delay in Legal Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm Keith Johnson

Applicant

Ralph Murray Holmes

First Respondent

National Crime Authority

Second Respondent

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Determination of Whether to Entertain Application Given Alleged Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for judicial review was made within a reasonable time
  2. 2 Whether the Federal Court should refuse to entertain the application due to delay

Ratio Decidendi

The application for judicial review was not made within a reasonable time after the applicant became aware of the relevant decisions, no satisfactory explanation for the delay was provided, and, applying the criteria and considerations in section 11 of the Judicial Review Act and relevant case law, the Court's discretion was exercised to refuse to entertain the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application by Malcolm Keith Johnson be dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.