Barton v Commonwealth [1974] HCA 20
Part IV of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966-1973 applies only to foreign states to which the Act is made applicable by ss. 9 and 10, i.e., states with which Australia has an extradition treaty. The executive power of the Commonwealth is not abrogated by the Act and permits making extradition requests, including requests for detention pending extradition, to foreign states not covered by the Act.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Stated Case / Questions of Law for Determination by the Full Court
- Outcome
- Questions answered as follows: 1. No. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. The plaintiffs' request for a declaration that the detaining request was ultra vires is rejected.
- Legal Topics
- ['executive Power' 'extradition' 'statutory Interpretation' 'prerogative Powers' 'request for Surrender of Fugitive Offenders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Stated Case / Questions of Law for Determination by the Full Court
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Pt IV of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966-1973 authorises the Australian Government to request extradition from foreign states not covered by ss. 9 and 10' 'Whether the Act is an exclusive code preventing the exercise of the executive/prerogative power to make extradition requests in circumstances not governed by the Act' 'Whether the executive power enables the Australian Government to request detention pending extradition from a foreign state with no treaty']
Ratio Decidendi
Part IV of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966-1973 applies only to foreign states to which the Act is made applicable by ss. 9 and 10, i.e., states with which Australia has an extradition treaty. The executive power of the Commonwealth is not abrogated by the Act and permits making extradition requests, including requests for detention pending extradition, to foreign states not covered by the Act.
Court Disposition
Questions answered as follows: 1. No. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. The plaintiffs' request for a declaration that the detaining request was ultra vires is rejected.
Orders
- ['Questions in the stated case were answered: 1. No. 2. Yes. 3. Yes.' 'Costs of the stated case to be costs in the action.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment