Foster v Minister for Customs and Justice [2000] HCA 38

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GAUDRON, McHUGH, KIRBY AND HAYNE JJ

PETER CLARENCE FOSTER APPELLANT

AND

MINISTER FOR CUSTOMS AND JUSTICE RESPONDENT

Foster v Minister for Customs and Justice [2000] HCA 38

Date of Order: 21 June 2000

Date of Publication of Reasons: 3 August 2000

B92/1999

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia

Representation:

W Sofronoff QC with D C Rangiah for the appellant (instructed by Patrick Murphy)

D M J Bennett QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth with J A Logan SC for the respondent (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

Catchwords

Peter Clarence Foster v Minister for Customs and Justice

Extradition ­– Extradition to and from Commonwealth countries – Surrender determination by Attorney‑General – Limitation condition qualification or exception – Satisfaction that circumstances engaging limitation condition qualification or exception do not exist – Unjust or oppressive or too severe a punishment to surrender eligible person – Double layer of satisfaction – Whether the Minister is satisfied that he or she is not satisfied that it would be unjust or oppressive or too severe a punishment to surrender eligible person.

Administrative law – Judicial review legislation – Alleged failure to take into account a particular consideration – Extent of Minister's obligation to make inquiries.

Words and Phrases ­– "unjust or oppressive or too severe a punishment".

Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), ss 22, 23.

Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Regulations (Cth), reg 7.

GLEESON CJ AND McHUGH J. The issues in this appeal arise under the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Act") and the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Regulations (Cth) ("the Regulations"). The respondent, by delegation from the Attorney-General, exercises powers under the Act. Pursuant to s 22 of the Act, she determined that the appellant was to be surrendered in relation to three extradition offences allegedly committed in the United Kingdom, a magistrate having previously determined that the appellant was eligible for surrender in respect of those and two other offences. Then, pursuant to s 23 of the Act, she issued a warrant for the surrender of the appellant to the United Kingdom. There had been an earlier determination, and warrant, in relation to five offences including the three mentioned above. Much of the material upon which the Minister acted in relation to the three offences had originally been provided in relation to the five.