Tervonen v Minister for Justice and Customs [2007] FCA 1684

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tervonen v Minister for Justice and Customs (No 2) [2007] FCA 1684

EXTRADITION – Extradition request – notice of receipt of – where two notices have been issued – where second notice has been issued as a notice amending the first – where second notice has been issued by a different Minister to the first

EXTRADITION – first notice – whether discretion to issue notice was validly exercised – whether the statement of the conduct or acts or omissions of the person the subject of the request was sufficient to allow the Minister to form the opinion which s 16(2)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) required – dual criminality principle – whether the Minister needed to receive all the material provided by the extradition country in order validly to exercise his function in accordance with law – relief to be granted in circumstances where notice has been found to be invalid

EXTRADITION – second notice – where first notice has been found to be invalid – where detention of the person the subject of the request has become unlawful under ss 15 and 17 of the Extradition Act – whether Minister had power to issue amended notice – whether the Minister for Justice and Customs can exercise powers of Attorney-General under s 16 of the Extradition Act – whether the statement of the conduct or acts or omissions of the person the subject of the request was sufficient to allow the Minister to form the opinion which s 16(2)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act required

EXTRADITION – where notice of receipt of extradition request has been found to be deficient in respect of certain paragraphs – whether the notice is wholly or partly invalid – possibility of severance of notice under s 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – division of portfolio responsibilities between two Ministers – effect of division – whether one Minister authorised to exercise powers conferred by statute on the other – whether s 16 of the Extradition Act evinces a contrary intention for the purposes of s 19A(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act