ARNAULD AND ORS. V. FORDE AND ANOR.

~ ' ARNAULD AND ORS. V. FORDE AND ANOR.

Judgment Williams J.

This is an application by Mongieur Lancial the Acting Consul General for the Government of France in Australia and the 8 Frenchmen mentioned in Par. 4 of pais affidavit for a rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus directed against the Honour- able F.M.Forde Minister for the Army''and Major Miles Camp Command- ant Liverpool Internment Camp on the ground the 8 applicants are unlawfully detained in that camp. Assuming that M. Lancial's affidavit is sufficient evidence of the matters to which it refers, I am of opinion that it does not disclose any facts which give this Court original jurisdiction and as this Court can only issue a writ of habeas corpus where it has original or appellate jurisdic-

tion the application must fail.

Mr. Starke first submitted te the Court had original

jurisdiction because it was an action against the Commonwealth

or against suing a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth; this ground appears to me to be untenable. In so far as an application for a writ of habeas corpus is anacti ony it is an action between the persons unlawfully detained and the person who is detaining them The only evidence of detention is that

the applicants are being detained by Major Miles. There is not sufficient evidence implicating the Minister for the Army, but yeven if there wasyneither of them are being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, The application is against them personally. They are at most officers of the Commonwealth yin which case this Court would only have jurisdiction where a writ of mandamus or prohib- ition or injunction was being sought against them.

Mr. Starke next submitted that it was a matter arising under the Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and France and therefore within the exclusive jurisfiction of this Court. Under this treaty each of the contracting parties has a