El Khouri v Attorney-General [2018] FCA 1488

El Khouri v Attorney-General [2018] FCA 1488

The Federal Court of Australia lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the applicant under s 39B(1C) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) because a prosecution for an offence is on foot before a State court and the relief sought is in relation to 'related criminal justice process decisions'; even absent want of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Milled El Khouri; Respondent: Attorney-General
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Interlocutory Application / Application for Injunctive Relief Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of the Federal Court, Extradition Requests, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Prima Facie Case for Injunction, Executive Power in Extradition
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Jurisdiction of the Federal Court Extradition Requests Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Prima Facie Case for Injunction +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milled El Khouri

Applicant

Attorney-General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Interlocutory Application / Application for Injunctive Relief Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction under s 39B(1C) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to grant injunctions relating to extradition and mutual assistance requests?
  2. 2 Were the warrants and requests for extradition legally valid despite alleged errors?
  3. 3 Was there a prima facie case for injunctive relief against the Attorney-General's actions in relation to extradition and phone seizure requests?

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court of Australia lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the applicant under s 39B(1C) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) because a prosecution for an offence is on foot before a State court and the relief sought is in relation to 'related criminal justice process decisions'; even absent want of jurisdiction, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for injunctive relief as the requests and warrants were lawfully made and no public duty was owed by the respondent which could be restrained by the Court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The amended interlocutory application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the costs of the respondent on the amended interlocutory application, to be assessed if not agreed.