DPP v Hendra Rahardja [2003] NSWLC 11

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: DPP v Hendra Rahardja [2003] NSWLC 11 JURISDICTION: Criminal PARTIES: Director of Public Prosecution Hendra Rahardja (Defendant) FILE NUMBER: PLACE OF HEARING: Central Local Court Sydney DATE OF DECISION: 09/24/1994 MAGISTRATE: Magsitrate B A Lulham CATCHWORDS: Extradition LEGISLATION CITED: Extradition Act 1988 Zoeller v Republic of Germany (1989( 23FCR 297 United States v Holt 49 FCR 501 CASES CITED: Prabowo v Republic of Indonesia (1995) 61 FCR 258 Fernandez v Government of Singapore (1971) WLR 994 Hempel v Attorney General (1987) 77 ALR 665 REPRESENTATION: Mr Hastings QC & Mr Riley for Indonesia Mr Game SC & Mr Jordan for defendant ORDERS: Order made for the issue of an Extradition Warrant

Reasons for Decision 1 In this matter the Republic of Indonesia seeks a determination that Hendra Rahardja is eligible for surrender in relation to extradition offences. 2 The application is made under S.19 of the Extradition Act 1988. 3 Mr Hastings QC and Mr Riley appeared for Indonesia and Mr Game SC and Mr Jordan appeared for the respondent. 4 I heard evidence on 30 August and on 1st and 2nd September. I then adjourned the matter to 17 September to enable a transcript to be obtained and to hear oral submissions. I also received very helpful written submissions from each party. I reserved my decision and adjourned the matter to 24 September 1999 for decision. 5 I am satisfied as to the four matters required to be proved under S.19(1) of the Extradition Act 1988. These matters were not in dispute. 6 The other relevant provisions of S.19 are as follows; 2 "19. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the person is only eligible for surrender in relation to an extradition offence for which surrender of the person is sought by the extradition country if: (a) the supporting documents in relation to the offence have been produced to the magistrate; (b) where this Act applies in relation to the extradition country subject to any limitations, conditions, exceptions or qualifications that require the production to the magistrate of any other documents - those documents have been produced to the magistrate; (c) the magistrate is satisfied that, if the conduct of the person constituting the offence in relation to the extradition country, or equivalent conduct, had taken place in the part of Australia where the proceedings are being conducted and at the time at which the extradition request in relation to the person was received, that conduct or that equivalent conduct would have constituted an extradition offence in relation to that part of Australia; and (d) the person does not satisfy the magistrate that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is an extradition objection in relation to the offence. (3) In relation to (2) (a), supporting documents, in relation to an extradition offence, means: (a) if the offence is an offence of which the person is accused - a duly authenticated warrant issued by the extradition country for the arrest of the person for the offence, or a duly authenticated copy of such a warrant; (b) - (c) in any case: (i) a duly authenticated statement in writing setting out a description of, and the penalty applicable in respect of, the offence; and (ii) a duly authenticated statement in writing setting out the conduct constituting the offence.