Matson v United States of America [2018] FCAFC 57

Matson v United States of America [2018] FCAFC 57

The affidavit supporting the extradition request, considered as a whole, contained sufficient facts to support a reasonable belief that Mr Matson committed the alleged offences, meeting the requirements of s 19(2)(b) of the Extradition Act and Article XI(3)(c) of the Treaty. Issues of delay did not amount to an abuse of process and were not for consideration by the Minister at the s 16 stage.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Baron Phillip Matson; First Respondent: The United States of America; Second Respondent (qud 569/2016); First Respondent (qud 51/2017): The Hon Michael Keenan M.P. Minister for Justice; Third Respondent (qud 569/2016); Second Respondent (qud 51/2017): Magistrate Morrison, Australian Capital Territory Magistrates Court; Second Respondent (qud 844/2016): A Magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Queensland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Judicial Review Applications / Appeal From Primary Judge; Review of Magistrate's Committal, and Judicial Review of Minister's Decision
Outcome
Appeal and applications dismissed. Applicant to pay respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
Extradition Procedure, Requirements for Supporting Documents, Ministerial Discretion in Extradition, Abuse of Process—delay, Judicial Review Under S 39 B Judiciary Act, Interpretation of Extradition Act 1988 (cth), Treaty Obligations
Extradition Administrative Law Criminal Law Human Rights Extradition Procedure Requirements for Supporting Documents Ministerial Discretion in Extradition Abuse of Process—delay +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baron Phillip Matson

Applicant/appellant

The United States of America

First Respondent

The Hon Michael Keenan M.P. Minister for Justice

Second Respondent (qud 569/2016); First Respondent (qud 51/2017)

Magistrate Morrison, Australian Capital Territory Magistrates Court

Third Respondent (qud 569/2016); Second Respondent (qud 51/2017)

A Magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Queensland

Second Respondent (qud 844/2016)

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Judicial Review Applications / Appeal From Primary Judge; Review of Magistrate's Committal, and Judicial Review of Minister's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extradition request met the requirements of s 19(2)(b) Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) and Article XI(3)(c) of the Treaty
  2. 2 Whether supporting documents provided reasonable grounds for believing the offences were committed
  3. 3 Whether Minister was required to consider delay or make further inquiries before issuing notice under s 16 Extradition Act

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit supporting the extradition request, considered as a whole, contained sufficient facts to support a reasonable belief that Mr Matson committed the alleged offences, meeting the requirements of s 19(2)(b) of the Extradition Act and Article XI(3)(c) of the Treaty. Issues of delay did not amount to an abuse of process and were not for consideration by the Minister at the s 16 stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal and applications dismissed. Applicant to pay respondents' costs.

Orders

  • QUD 569 of 2016: Application dismissed. Applicant to pay respondents' costs as agreed or assessed.
  • QUD 844 of 2016: Appeal dismissed. Appellant to pay respondents' costs as agreed or assessed.