Cabal v United Mexican States (No 6) [2000] FCA 651

Cabal v United Mexican States (No 6) [2000] FCA 651

Although extradition review proceedings and bail applications under s 21(6)(f)(iv) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) are civil rather than criminal proceedings, the applicants were involuntarily deprived of liberty by State authority. The public interest in ensuring that detained persons are not deterred by possible adverse costs orders from seeking release on bail outweighs the ordinary compensatory rule that costs follow the event. An unsuccessful extradition bail application is a special circumstance warranting no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Costs in Extradition Proceeding Concerning Two Applications for Bail / Reserved Question of Costs Following Dismissal of Bail Applications Under S 21(6)(f)(iv) of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)
Outcome
No order as to costs of either bail application.
Legal Topics
['bail Pending Review of Extradition Committal' 'discretion to Award Costs' 'costs in Criminal Proceedings Compared With Extradition Bail Applications' 'detention Pending Surrender']
['extradition' 'costs' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['bail Pending Review of Extradition Committal' 'discretion to Award Costs' 'costs in Criminal Proceedings Compared With Extradition Bail Applications' 'detention Pending Surrender']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs in Extradition Proceeding Concerning Two Applications for Bail / Reserved Question of Costs Following Dismissal of Bail Applications Under S 21(6)(f)(iv) of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court should award costs against unsuccessful applicants for bail in extradition review proceedings.' 'Whether applications for bail under s 21(6)(f)(iv) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), although civil proceedings, should be treated similarly to bail applications in criminal matters for costs purposes.' 'Whether asserted breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or severe prison conditions justified departing from the usual costs rule.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although extradition review proceedings and bail applications under s 21(6)(f)(iv) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) are civil rather than criminal proceedings, the applicants were involuntarily deprived of liberty by State authority. The public interest in ensuring that detained persons are not deterred by possible adverse costs orders from seeking release on bail outweighs the ordinary compensatory rule that costs follow the event. An unsuccessful extradition bail application is a special circumstance warranting no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs of either bail application.

Orders

  • ["There be no order as to costs in respect of the applicants' applications, filed on 17 December 1999 and 9 February 2000, that they be released on bail until the review has been conducted."]