Wiest, E.A. v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [1988] FCA 414

SUD No, AIA Be

CATCHWORDS

EXTRADITION ~- Federal Republic of Germany - whether statement of acts or omissions vitiated by reliance on reasons for foreign judgment.

Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966, ss.4(1A), 4(1B), 4(3), 10, 12, 132) ote} I7{6A), 18

La LA ¢ , Extradition (Federal Republic of Germany) Regulations, reg.4

Eugen Alexander Wiest v. The Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor

NSW Gi062 of 1988

PINCUS J. SYDNEY 28 JULY 1988

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION )

N.S.W. G1062 of 1988

BETWEEN: EUGEN ALEXANDER WIEST

Applicant

AND: THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

First Respondent

AND: RICHARD PETER MISZALSKI

Second Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 28 JULY 1988 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the decision of the second respondent made on 31 May 1988 to issue a warrant committing the applicant to prison to await the warrant of the Attorney-General for his surrender to the Federal Republic of Germany be confirmed;

2. the application be otherwise dismissed.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )

GENERAL DIVISION )

N.S.W. G1062 of 1988

BETWEEN: EUGEN ALEXANDER WIEST

Applicant

AND: THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

First Respondent

AND: RICHARD PETER MISZALSKI

Second Respondent

PINCUS J. 28 JULY 1988

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant seeks relief under s.18 of the Extradition

(Foreign States) Act 1966 by way of review of a decision of the

second respondent, a magistrate, 1n proceedings under that Act. The applicant also attacks the same decision under' the

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

It should be mentioned that the first respondent to the application just mentioned, the Director of Public Prosecutions, also made an application relating to a decision of the second respondent, concerning an undertaking as to costs. It was heard with the other application, but raises a distinct issue, and will