Bou-Simon, Robert Anthony v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [1998] FCA 1097

Bou-Simon, Robert Anthony v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [1998] FCA 1097

The applicant was not entitled to intervention in the French extradition process because any alleged misleading aspects of the supplementary affidavit could be addressed before the French Court, there was no established bad faith or fraud on the extradition process, and procedural fairness in the French proceedings was not shown to be lacking. The prosecution should not be stayed because the incorrect identification of FR Futures as the applicant's employer was only a variance, not a different offence, and section 65 of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW) or section 15C of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) could be relied on without recharging the applicant or instituting fresh proceedings outside the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Application for Declaratory, Injunctive/prohibitory and Judicial Review Relief Arising From Extradition and Criminal Proceedings / Final Hearing; Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant not entitled to final relief. Costs to be addressed after further submissions if required.
Legal Topics
['alleged Abuse of Process in Extradition Request' 'misleading Affidavit Filed in French Extradition Proceedings' 'stay of Criminal Proceedings' 'amendment or Variance of Criminal Informations' 'limitation Period for Corporations Law Offences' 'duplicity of Charges' 'rule of Speciality']
['extradition' 'criminal Law' 'corporations Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['alleged Abuse of Process in Extradition Request' 'misleading Affidavit Filed in French Extradition Proceedings' 'stay of Criminal Proceedings' 'amendment or Variance of Criminal Informations' 'limitation Period for Corporations Law Offences' 'duplicity of Charges' 'rule of Speciality']

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

Federal Court Application for Declaratory, Injunctive/prohibitory and Judicial Review Relief Arising From Extradition and Criminal Proceedings / Final Hearing; Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the supplementary affidavit provided for the French extradition proceedings was misleading.' 'Whether submission of the supplementary affidavit to the French Court was an abuse of process justifying intervention by the Federal Court.' 'Whether the alleged offence involving Fay Richwhite Australia Limited was a different offence from the offence alleged in the informations involving Fay Richwhite Futures Australia Limited.' "Whether section 15C of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) or section 65 of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW) could be relied on to address the incorrect statement of the applicant's employer." 'Whether reliance on section 15C of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) or section 65 of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW) would require recharging so as to institute fresh proceedings outside the limitation period in section 1316 of the Corporations Law.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not entitled to intervention in the French extradition process because any alleged misleading aspects of the supplementary affidavit could be addressed before the French Court, there was no established bad faith or fraud on the extradition process, and procedural fairness in the French proceedings was not shown to be lacking. The prosecution should not be stayed because the incorrect identification of FR Futures as the applicant's employer was only a variance, not a different offence, and section 65 of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW) or section 15C of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) could be relied on without recharging the applicant or instituting fresh proceedings outside the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; applicant not entitled to final relief. Costs to be addressed after further submissions if required.

Orders

  • ['The application should be dismissed with costs.' 'Before making orders, the parties were to be given an opportunity to make further submissions as to costs.']