Minister for Home Affairs v Tervonen [2008] FCAFC 24

Minister for Home Affairs v Tervonen [2008] FCAFC 24

The Minister, in issuing the Amended Notice, did consider the material afresh and was adequately informed of the requisite conduct for a substantial number of offences; however, certain offences lacked sufficient detail, and the invalid portions could be severed pursuant to s 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act.

Parties
Appellant: Minister for Home Affairs; Respondent: Jan Tervonen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Decision of a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Notice of Receipt of Extradition Request, Ministerial Decision Making Under Extradition Act, Severability of Defective Notice, Judicial Review of Ministerial Decisions
Extradition Administrative Law Notice of Receipt of Extradition Request Ministerial Decision Making Under Extradition Act Severability of Defective Notice Judicial Review of Ministerial Decisions

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister for Home Affairs

Appellant

Jan Tervonen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From a Decision of a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister, in issuing an amended notice under s 16(1) of the Extradition Act 1988, failed to consider the matter afresh
  2. 2 Whether the information before the Minister included a sufficient statement of conduct for the relevant offences for the purposes of dual criminality
  3. 3 Whether invalid paragraphs of a s 16 notice can be severed under s 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister, in issuing the Amended Notice, did consider the material afresh and was adequately informed of the requisite conduct for a substantial number of offences; however, certain offences lacked sufficient detail, and the invalid portions could be severed pursuant to s 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Orders 2, 4 and 5 made by the primary judge on 8 November 2007 set aside.
  • It is declared that the document dated 30 April 2007 signed by Senator Johnston is not a valid notice under s 16(1) of the Extradition Act 1988 with respect to the offences listed in [24] – [50], [55], [57] and [58].