Tervonen v Finland

[2008] FCA 1539

Federal Court of Australia|2008-10-16|Before: Flick J, Rares J, Buchanan J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Federal Court of Australia

Decision date

2008-10-16

Before

Flick J, Rares J, Buchanan J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (12 paragraphs)

[1]

History 1 This matter has a complex history. Mr Tervonen is resisting extradition to Finland to face numerous allegations of fraud, forgery and related offences. The extradition process, which is conventionally regarded as proceeding in four stages (see Harris v Attorney-General (Cth) (1994) 52 FCR 386 ('Harris') at 389; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kainhofer (1995) 185 CLR 528 ('Kainhofer') at 547; Vasiljkovic v Commonwealth (2006) 227 CLR 614 at [55] and Minister for Home Affairs v Tervonen (2008) 166 FCR 91 at [9]) commenced when the Australian government, on 27 July 2006, received a request from Finland for the extradition of Mr Tervonen. 2 The extradition process includes the issue of a provisional arrest warrant under s 12 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) ('the Act') by a magistrate upon application on behalf of an extradition country, the issue of a notice under s 16 of the Act by the Attorney-General (or other responsible Minister), upon receipt of an extradition request from an extradition country, stating to a magistrate that the request has been received and the conduct of proceedings under s 19 of the Act by a magistrate to determine whether a person whose extradition is sought is eligible for surrender. The High Court pointed out in Kainhofer that these three steps (which occur within the first three stages identified in Harris) are 'administrative in nature' and are 'exercisable by different repositories in sequence' but that 'none of them authorises the repository of a power to review the exercise of a power by another repository earlier in the sequence' (185 CLR 528 at 538). That is an important consideration to be borne in mind with respect to the procedural history which follows. 3 On 18 August 2006 the then Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Ellison, issued a Notice of Receipt of Extradition Request under s 16(1) of the Act. On 30 April 2007 Senator Johnston, who was then the Minister for Justice and Customs, issued an amended notice. 4 On 6 June 2007 a magistrate determined pursuant to s 19 of the Act that Mr Tervonen was eligible for surrender for offences itemised in the amended notice issued on 30 April 2007. However, on 6 November 2007 Rares J decided that each of the first two notices was invalid (Tervonen v Minister for Justice and Customs [2007] FCA 1684). As a result, on 20 December 2007 Gyles J ordered that the magistrate's order made on 6 June 2007 be quashed (Tervonen v Finland [2007] FCA 2067). 5 A Full Court which considered an appeal against the judgment of Rares J decided on 6 March 2008 that the amended notice of 30 April 2007 was substantially valid (Minister for Home Affairs v Tervonen [2008] FCAFC 24) and also, as a consequence, upheld the appeal against the judgment of Gyles J (The Republic of Finland v Tervonen [2008] FCAFC 25). That matter was remitted to Gyles J for further consideration. Gyles J subsequently confirmed the magistrate's order of 6 June 2007 save in respect of certain offences omitted from the amended notice under s 16 as a result of the order of the Full Court which found that notice substantially, but not entirely, valid (Tervonen v Finland [2008] FCA 781). The latest decision of Gyles J is subject to appeal. The appeal is listed for hearing in November 2008. 6 Meanwhile, on 21 December 2007 Mr Tervonen commenced the further proceedings which led to the judgment in respect of which he has sought leave to appeal. On this occasion he filed an application relying on s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) seeking a determination that the extradition request made by Finland on 27 July 2006 was 'invalid'. Those proceedings were dismissed by Flick J on 6 August 2008 (Tervonen v Finland [2008] FCA 1133). It is against that judgment of Flick J that Mr Tervonen has sought leave to appeal.

[4]

The earlier attempts to put the argument 11 At this point it is necessary to distinguish between the proceedings before Rares J and the appeal from Rares J to the Full Court (on the one hand), which were each concerned with s 16 of the Act, and the proceedings before Gyles J (on the other hand) which were concerned with s 19 of the Act. As I pointed out earlier, an appeal has been filed against the latest judgment of Gyles J and the appeal is listed for hearing in November 2008. Before the magistrate who determined that Mr Tervonen was eligible for surrender, and before Gyles J, Mr Tervonen relied on the arguments he wished to advance in the proceedings before Flick J. Gyles J felt constrained by the judgment of the High Court in Kainhofer to conclude that the argument was unavailable in proceedings concerned with s 19 of the Act. Whether that was a correct view or not may be examined on the appeal. If it was correct then the arguments are not available to Mr Tervonen in connection with s 19 of the Act. If Gyles J was incorrect the arguments remain available in that context, although it does not appear that they relate to all the warrants outstanding against Mr Tervonen. 12 Gyles J, however, did not think that Mr Tervonen's contentions were unworthy of consideration or necessarily wrong so far as they concerned fundamental aspects of the extradition arrangements between Australia and Finland. His Honour said: '8. Tervonen puts authentication of the warrants in issue but also takes a point of substance. He contends (and contended before the Magistrate) that five of the eight warrants are for his arrest for pre-trial investigation purposes rather than for trial for the offences. He submits that there is a clear distinction in Finnish law between the two purposes. He submits that only a public prosecutor can bring a prosecution, the police powers being limited to the investigation stage. These submissions are not evidence, but have clearly flagged an issue. …' and: '20. It appears that Tervonen put a similar argument to Rares J in the proceeding challenging the validity of the s 16 notice - see Tervonen [2007] FCA 1684; 98 ALD 589 at [33]-[44]. Rares J decided that it was open to the Minister to form the relevant opinion but did not consider the correctness or otherwise of that opinion, the proceeding before him being a challenge on administrative law grounds. 21. In my opinion, it is tolerably clear in the present case that only the first three warrants would normally be regarded as being "for the arrest of the person for the offence", the other warrants being connected with coercive investigation. To borrow from Art 1 of the Treaty, it was only those warrants by which Tervonen had been charged by a competent authority with the relevant offences against the law of Finland, bearing in mind that an extradition treaty must be a treaty relating to the surrender of persons accused or convicted of offences (s 5). That conclusion is assisted by the failure of Finland to produce material to the Magistrate explaining the system as it applied to the issues in the case. 22. However, counsel for Finland submits that this argument is effectively foreclosed to Tervonen by the decision of the High Court in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kainhofer (1995) 185 CLR 528. …' and: '24. … I can see no escape from the conclusion that the decision of the High Court in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kainhofer 185 CLR 528 does have the effect as submitted on behalf of Finland. 25. On the merits of the issue, if it were open to be considered, in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kainhofer 185 CLR 528, Gummow J said (at 564): "The fundamental question is whether the person whose extradition is sought under Pt II is one in respect of whom there has been taken by the competent authorities in the extradition country a decision to invoke the operation of the criminal law by the taking of whatever steps are necessary to initiate what might fairly be described as a prosecution." The fact that his Honour did not agree with the conclusion of the Full Court in that case on that issue would not be of any significance here, as the facts here are considerably stronger than the facts in Director of Public Prosections (Cth) v Kainhofer 185 CLR 528. There is nothing in the majority judgment in the High Court to indicate that they would have taken a different view in principle from Gummow J if the question had fallen for determination.' 13 In his judgment concerning s 16 of the Act Rares J also addressed the question whether it was open to the Minister to find that the Finnish warrants satisfied the criteria established by s 6(a)(i) of the Act, namely, whether they were warrants in force for the arrest of Mr Tervonen in relation to offences which he was accused of having committed. Mr Tervonen had argued before Rares J that the warrants referred to him 'being suspected on probable cause' of identified conduct and that such a formulation fell short of an accusation that he had committed a relevant offence. Rares J rejected the argument. He referred to the following passage in Kainhofer at 540: 'It is sufficient to say that, in considering whether a person is an extraditable person under s 6(a)(i) of the Act, it is necessary to bear in mind the statutory object of enabling Australia to carry out its obligations under extradition treaties with countries that adopt a variety of criminal procedures different from our own.' 14 Rares J said (at [37] and [42]): '37 Mr Tervonen argued that on their face none of the 8 warrants amounted to an accusation that Mr Tervonen had actually committed an offence or that he was 'accused' of having done so within the meaning of s 6(a)(i). He said that a mere statement in the warrants that his arrest was claimed and that he was 'suspected with probable cause of the following criminal acts' which were then set out was insufficient to satisfy s 6(a)(i). … 42 Each warrant, on its face, was termed a 'warrant'. It was issued by a Finnish court for the arrest of Mr Tervonen who was stated to have been suspected on probable cause of having committed an offence. The Minister could reasonably form the opinion that each document was a warrant, issued by a Finnish Court, in force, for the arrest of Mr Tervonen in relation to an offence against the law of Finland that he was accused of having committed within the meaning of s 6(a)(i). While other persons may not have formed the same view, having regard to the significant differences between the laws of other countries and Australia, to which Mason CJ, Dawson and McHugh JJ referred to in Kainhofer 185 CLR at 540, I am of opinion that it was open to Senator Ellison to form the view that each of the warrants was one which met the description in s 6(a)(i).' 15 As earlier noted Rares J, however, decided that each of the two notices under s 16 which were before him for examination was invalidly issued and he made orders quashing them. When those orders were appealed it would usually be, and was, the case that the appeal would be decided without disturbing the conclusion which Rares J had reached that it was open to Senator Ellison to conclude that Mr Tervonen was an extraditable person within the meaning of s 6(a)(i) of the Act unless Mr Tervonen put that conclusion in issue by filing a notice of contention in the appeal seeking to support the conclusion of invalidity of the notices upon this ground, if necessary. He did not do that. As Flick J pointed out in the judgment in respect of which leave to appeal is sought (at [16]): 'No argument as to the meaning of the words "accused" or "offence" occurred in the Full Court. No notice of contention was filed on behalf of Mr Tervonen seeking to raise any such argument before the Full Court.'

[7]

The decision of Gyles J 19 In Kainhofer (a case which concerned extradition sought by Austria, a civil law country like Finland) a Full Court of this Court upheld the same sort of argument that Mr Tervonen wishes to rely upon. The proceedings were concerned with the operation of s 19, rather than s 16 of the Act. The Full Court said (at 358-359): 'The Act clearly provides for the surrender of a person to a requesting State only if the person is accused, or has been convicted, of an extradition offence. We are of opinion that the Treaty is to the same effect.' … Neither the Act nor the Treaty, however, defines the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as being "accused" of the offence or offences in respect of which surrender is sought. In the jurisprudence of this country, one would not normally speak of a person as a person who is "accused" of a criminal offence in the sense in which that expression is used in the Act unless legal proceedings for the imposition of a penalty in respect of the offence have been commenced by the laying before a magistrate or other appropriate official of an information or complaint alleging the commission of the offence or by the presentation to a court of an indictment alleging such commission or unless the person has been formally charged with the offence before an appropriate official following upon his arrest. That statement may not be exhaustive but, in any event, it would not be sufficient to establish that a person was "accused" of an offence to show only that a complaint had been made to the police alleging the commission of the offence or that the police, or other investigating body, were conducting inquiries to determine whether there was evidence of the commission of the offence sufficient to warrant the person being "accused" of the offence in the sense mentioned. That the warrant of arrest provides for the appellant to be taken into custody "on the strong suspicion" of having committed the specified offences clearly suggests that her presence in the Republic of Austria is required in furtherance of the investigations being conducted by the appropriate authorities in that country rather than to answer criminal charges of which she is presently "accused" in the sense to which we have referred.' (Emphasis added) 20 However, in the High Court that approach was not regarded as sufficiently focussed upon the particular requirements of s 19 of the Act. The majority judgment held (185 CLR at 540): 'In the present case, the only issue for determination under s 19(2)(a) was whether the document produced was a duly authenticated warrant or copy warrant issued by the Republic of Austria for the arrest of the respondent for an extradition offence for which the surrender of the respondent was sought by the Republic of Austria. That issue did not require a finding as to whether the respondent was a person "accused". It follows that the Federal Court was in error in considering whether the s 19 magistrate could properly have found that the respondent had been "accused" of any of the four offences in relation to which the magistrate held the respondent to be eligible for surrender. It is unnecessary to decide whether the Federal Court was itself in error in the meaning which it attributed to "accused" or in the effect which it attributed to the warrant for the arrest of the respondent issued by the Salzburg State Court in the Republic of Austria.' (Emphasis added) 21 The High Court's approach was based upon the fact that s 19 does not require a magistrate to enquire into whether a person against whom extradition is brought is an 'extraditable person' within the meaning of s 6 of the Act. Further, although whether a person is an extraditable person is a matter about which the Minister must form an opinion (s 16(2)(a)(i)), a magistrate is not entitled to review that opinion (Kainhofer at 538). It was for those reasons that Gyles J also concluded that Mr Tervonen's argument could not be sustained in relation to proceedings under s 19. As indicated, that decision is subject to appeal. Mr Tervonen's interests in relation to his present application are best served by assuming the correctness of Gyles J's decision for present purposes because it strengthens the proposition that he should have been allowed to argue the matter in connection with s 16 of the Act. 22 Having regard to the judgment of the High Court in Kainhofer, it is at least arguable that Flick J was incorrect to conclude that there was no possibility of a different result, in proceedings concerning s 16 of the Act, than that reached by Gyles J.

[8]

Anshun estoppel 23 Flick J's decision was also based upon the decision of the High Court in Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Proprietary Limited (1981) 147 CLR 589. His Honour said, in the judgment in respect of which leave is sought, (at [24]): '24. Any argument that a person is not an "extraditable person", because there is no warrant for his arrest for an "offence", is an argument which should have been raised - if it was to be raised at all - when the Minister's decisions under s 16 were under scrutiny by this Court either at first instance or on appeal. It is an argument which should have been advanced as a reason why the Minister could not have lawfully reached the "opinion" required.' 24 Anshun estoppel, as the principle distilled by that decision is now known in Australia, is not an absolute bar as the following passages in the majority judgment (at 602-604) illustrate: '[W]e would prefer to say that there will be no estoppel unless it appears that the matter relied upon as a defence in the second action was so relevant to the subject matter of the first action that it would have been unreasonable not to rely on it. Generally speaking, it would be unreasonable not to plead a defence if, having regard to the nature of the plaintiff's claim, and its subject matter it would be expected that the defendant would raise the defence and thereby enable the relevant issues to be determined in the one proceeding. In this respect, we need to recall that there are a variety of circumstances, some referred to in the earlier case, why a party may justifiably refrain from litigating an issue in one proceeding yet wish to litigate the issue in other proceedings e.g. expense, importance of the particular issue, motives extraneous to the actual litigation, to mention but a few … It has generally been accepted that a party will be estopped from bringing an action which, if it succeeds, will result in a judgment which conflicts with an earlier judgment … The likelihood that the omission to plead a defence will contribute to the existence of conflicting judgments is obviously an important factor to be taken into account in deciding whether the omission to plead can found an estoppel against the assertion of the same matter as a foundation for a cause of action in a second proceeding. By "conflicting" judgments we include judgments which are contradictory, thought they may not be pronounced on the same cause of action. It is enough that they appear to declare rights which are inconsistent in respect of the same transaction.' 25 Invocation of the principle of Anshun estoppel calls for the exercise of a judgment. In the present case it required an assessment of whether it was 'unreasonable' for Mr Tervonen not to have raised his present contentions on the appeal against Rares J and whether there is a risk of 'conflicting judgments' if he is allowed to argue the matter now. 26 Because the application of the doctrine of Anshun estoppel calls for the exercise of a judgment I am prepared to accept that there is room for argument about Flick J's conclusion.

[9]

Abuse of process 27 Finally, Flick J decided that it would be an abuse of process, and vexatious and oppressive, to put the Minister to the task of meeting another challenge to Mr Tervonen's extradition. In part the conclusion was based upon the decision of Gyles J. Flick J said (at [28]): 'The decision of Gyles J correctly, with respect, concluded that the argument sought to be pursued was foreclosed by the decision in Kainhofer. To now permit the same argument to be advanced, albeit against a different respondent, would be an abuse of process as it would be the pursuit of litigation already resolved against a party and litigation having no prospects of success.' 28 I have already expressed my view that there is scope for debate about whether Gyles J's conclusion, that Mr Tervonen's argument was not available in relation to s 19 of the Act, foreclosed it also in relation to s 16. 29 The other basis upon which Flick J concluded that Mr Tervonen's application was an abuse of process appeared to be (at [32]-[33]) that the time had arrived to put a stop to Mr Tervonen's continuing attempts to challenge decisions which must be taken to have been 'fully reviewed', or an 'ample opportunity' extended for such review. His Honour also expressed the view (at [39]-[40]) that it was 'too late' to allow the application to proceed and to do so would be an abuse of process. 30 Those conclusions were expressed somewhat generally, although his Honour did refer to his judgment in Brock v Minister for Justice and Customs (2007) 243 ALR 315 ('Brock') at [72]-[74]. His Honour's judgment in Brock was affirmed on appeal on 17 September 2008 (Brock v Minister for Home Affairs [2008] FCAFC 165 ('Brock Appeal'). Importantly, for present purposes, Lindgren and Tracey JJ said (at [77]): '77 We would also uphold the second ground advanced by Ms Gleeson of counsel for the Minister, for resisting the granting of leave to appeal. This is that according to the scheme of the provisions to which we have referred, the work to be done by the issue of a Notice of Receipt of Extradition Request under s 16 is spent once the s 19 stage in the process is reached. The presence of para (c) in s 19(2) demonstrates an intention that any challenge to the satisfaction of the dual criminality provision is to take place within the framework of an application under s 21 for review of the Magistrate's order. The Magistrate was required to satisfy herself independently that the dual criminality requirement was met, and was not required to review the Minister's having been previously satisfied that it was met for s 16 purposes: see Directorof Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kainhofer (1995) 185 CLR 528 at 538-539.' (Emphasis added) 31 On one view, the passage I have emphasised may apply to the present case. It marks an important point of departure from the views expressed in the Brock Appeal by Gray J (see at [8]). The conclusion is binding upon me so far as it applies. 32 However, their Honours were not addressing the question of whether Mr Brock was an extraditable person within the meaning of s 6 of the Act. They were dealing with the 'dual criminality' requirement about which the Minister must form an opinion (s 16(2)(a)(ii)) and the magistrate must be satisfied (s 19(2)(c)). The magistrate is required to form an independent view about that issue which is neither a review of the Minister's opinion nor dependent upon it. However, whether a person is 'an extraditable person' is not a matter about which a magistrate must be satisfied. For present purposes (although a Full Court may in due course take a different view) I do not read the passage from the Brock Appeal which I have extracted above as eliminating the possibility of a challenge to the formation of an opinion by a Minister that a person is an extraditable person simply because the s 19 stage has been reached.

[11]

Conclusion 37 In all the circumstances, I think there remains open to Mr Tervonen the possibility that a Full Court might conclude that he should not be prevented from putting his argument that the Minister should not have formed the opinion that he was an extraditable person with respect to some, at least, of the eight warrants relied upon by Finland. In the context of s 16 of the Act, even if not under s 19, such an argument gains support from the observations of the Full Court in Kainhofer and from the remarks of Gyles J. I am also satisfied that the interests of justice require that the opportunity to argue an appeal should not be denied to Mr Tervonen. 38 Naturally, Mr Tervonen's failure to press the argument on the appeal from Rares J remains a formidable obstacle to his prospects on appeal but it is not my task to decide whether Flick J was correct or incorrect in his approach to that issue. If there is a sufficient case for the attention of a Full Court Mr Tervonen is entitled to a grant of leave to appeal. 39 I emphasise that my decision that Mr Tervonen should have leave to appeal against the summary dismissal of his application provides no forecast of the result of the appeal, much less of the outcome of the application if the appeal is upheld. As Flick J, with respect, correctly observed, the application is largely misconceived in its focus and with respect to the precise relief which was sought. Those problems remain, even if an appeal succeeds, but they are not at the centre of matters for present attention. 40 I will order that leave is granted to appeal against the judgment of Flick J in Tervonen v Finland [2008] FCA 1133. Costs will be reserved. 41 In my view this is a suitable matter for use of the arrangements set out in O 80 of the Federal Court Rules to provide Mr Tervonen with pro bono legal representation should he wish to avail himself of it. I will give the necessary directions to make that facility available to Mr Tervonen. I certify that the preceding forty-one (41) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Buchanan.

Tervonen v Finland

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (12 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (17)

Cited By (1)