Tervonen v Finland [2008] FCA 1133

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tervonen v Finland [2008] FCA 1133

EXTRADITION –attempt to review extradition request – whether a person is "accused" – "offence" – whether warrants were for pre-trial investigative purposes – no prospects of success – Anshun estoppel – abuse of process – declaratory relief in respect to validity of an extradition request Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), ss 6, 16 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B(1) Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth), O 20 r 5 Australian Education Union v Lawler [2008] FCAFC 135 followed Brock v Minister for Justice and Customs [2007] FCA 2091, 243 ALR 315 considered Coffey v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1999] FCA 375, 86 FCR 434 followed Dutton v Republic of South Africa [1999] FCA 1016, 92 FCR 575 followed Ling v Cth (1996) 68 FCR 180 considered Minister for Home Affairs v Tervonen [2008] FCAFC 24, 166 FCR 91 cited Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 followed R v Secretary of State for the Environment; Ex parte Hackney London Borough Council [1984] 1 All ER 358, [1984] 1 All ER 956 cited Rivera v Minister Administering the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) [2007] FCAFC 191, 164 FCR 116 considered SZBJM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 404 followed Taylor v Ansett Transport Industries Ltd (1987) 18 FCR 342 followed Tervonen v Finland [2008] FCA 781 followed Tervonen v Minister for Home Affairs [2008] FCA 872 cited Tervonen v Minister for Justice and Customs (No 2) [2007] FCA 1684, 98 ALD 589 cited Walton v Gardiner [1992] HCA 12, 177 CLR 378 followed Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 242, 146 FCR 10 followed Campbell E, Relitigation in Government Cases: A Study of the Use of Estoppel Principles in Public Law Litigation (1994) 20 Mon Univ L Rev 21 Handley K R, Anshun Today (1997) 71 ALJ 934 JAN TERVONEN v FINLAND AND ORS