Rahardja v Republic of Indonesia S243/2000 [2001] HCATrans 357 (10 August 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S243 of 2000

B e t w e e n -

HENDRA RAHARDJA

Applicant

and

REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J

HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 10 AUGUST 2001, AT 12.11 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR B.W. WALKER, SC: May it please your Honours, I appear with my learned friends, MR T.A. GAME, SC and MR D. JORDAN, for the applicant. (instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth)

MR P. ROBERTS, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with MR T. REILLY for the respondent. (instructed by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)

McHUGH J: Yes, Mr Walker.

MR WALKER: Your Honours, my first submission is that this application for special leave to appeal, which is premised, as your Honours will have seen upon the validity and, indeed, depends entirely upon contentions as to the proper application of the Extradition Act, should be adjourned so as to be relisted for argument, if that be necessary, after this Court has heard the full quasi-appellate argument which has been fixed for 6 and 7 September next on another application for special leave to appeal with respect to Mr Pasini's proposed extradition. We have notified our learned friends of this.

McHUGH J: Yes, I understand that. Mr Roberts, how can we deal with the matter? If the Court should hold that the Act is invalid, it would mean that this applicant would then have to bring another special leave application if it is dismissed. Why should it not stand over?

MR ROBERTS: I think your Honours have seen a copy of the letter that we wrote in relation to this application.

McHUGH J: Yes.

MR ROBERTS: We provided it to the Registrar. Your Honours, this matter is very old in terms of - - -

McHUGH J: I know it is.

MR ROBERTS: Of course, Mr Rahardja remains in custody and the course that we propose was that the application as it present stands be dealt with and the final disposition of the matter would - if an application was so made, we would not object if your Honours were to not finally dispose until after Mr Pasini's appeal, Mr Cabal having withdrawn his special leave application. That was the position that we put forward in order to, in our submission, most expeditiously deal with this matter. Obviously, if your Honours took that course you would have to look at it twice; we understand that would be so. Of course, there is no constitutional point argued in our learned friends' application at this stage. They have three points, all of them factual, and we would respectfully submit it could be appropriately dealt with in the fashion indicated in our letter.

McHUGH J: What do you suggest, that if we should hear the application, if we are against Mr Walker, we should stand the matter over then to await the outcome of Pasini before formally dismissing the application?

MR ROBERTS: Yes, that is the course that we envisage.

McHUGH J: It is not a terribly satisfactory procedure. I think the best thing in the circumstances, Mr Roberts, is to adjourn the matter.

MR ROBERTS: If the Court pleases.

McHUGH J: This matter will be stood over to a date to be fixed after the Court gives its decision in the matter of Pasini which is listed for hearing next month in Canberra.

MR WALKER: If it please the Court.

AT 12.16 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED