Cabal v United Mexican States [No 2] [2001] HCA 43

Cabal v United Mexican States [No 2] [2001] HCA 43

The High Court possesses an implied constitutional power to grant bail to an applicant for special leave to appeal, in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances are established where prolonged detention in severe conditions exists and the applicant is able to provide adequate and enforceable security and sureties for bail. The Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) does not provide the statutory power absent a grant of special leave, so the power derives from the Constitution. On the facts, these requirements are met, warranting the grant of bail.

Parties
First Applicant: Carlos Cabal (Peniche); Second Applicant: Marco Pasini (Bertran); First Respondent: United Mexican States; Second Respondent: Second Respondent; Third Respondent: Third Respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Bail Pending Appeal / Post Refusal Renewed Application for Bail Pending Hearing of Special Leave to Appeal Before Full Court
Outcome
Bail granted to the first applicant (Mr Cabal) upon the stated conditions; liberty to apply reserved regarding security documents; costs reserved; effect of orders stayed until 4.30pm on 20 July 2001.
Legal Topics
High Court Inherent/implied Jurisdiction, Bail Pending Appeal, Exceptional Circumstances, Extradition Act 1988 (cth), Constitutional Right to Bail
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Practice and Procedure Extradition High Court Inherent/implied Jurisdiction Bail Pending Appeal Exceptional Circumstances Extradition Act 1988 (cth) +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carlos Cabal (Peniche)

First Applicant

Marco Pasini (Bertran)

Second Applicant

United Mexican States

First Respondent

Second Respondent

Second Respondent

Third Respondent

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Bail Pending Appeal / Post Refusal Renewed Application for Bail Pending Hearing of Special Leave to Appeal Before Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court of Australia has power (implied or inherent) to grant bail before special leave has been granted in an extradition matter
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify bail
  3. 3 Whether adequate security/sureties are available for bail

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court possesses an implied constitutional power to grant bail to an applicant for special leave to appeal, in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances are established where prolonged detention in severe conditions exists and the applicant is able to provide adequate and enforceable security and sureties for bail. The Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) does not provide the statutory power absent a grant of special leave, so the power derives from the Constitution. On the facts, these requirements are met, warranting the grant of bail.

Court Disposition

Bail granted to the first applicant (Mr Cabal) upon the stated conditions; liberty to apply reserved regarding security documents; costs reserved; effect of orders stayed until 4.30pm on 20 July 2001.

Orders

  • First applicant (Mr Cabal) admitted to bail subject to conditions imposed in the Order (including residence, reporting, security, surrender of documents, restrictions on travel and contact, and surety undertakings)
  • Liberty reserved to apply regarding possession of security documents