Hempel, Arthur James & Anor v Moore, Kenneth & Anor [1987] FCA 257

Hempel, Arthur James & Anor v Moore, Kenneth & Anor [1987] FCA 257

There was no breach of natural justice by the Magistrate in refusing adjournment as the adjournment sought would not have enabled the appellants to adduce evidence admissible under s.17(6A) of the Act; any evidence obtained would be inadmissible to controvert the underlying allegations.

Parties
Appellant: Arthur James Hempel; Appellant: Laurence Etheredge; First Respondent: Kenneth Moore; Second Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge in the Federal Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Adjournment of Proceedings, Evidence in Extradition Hearings
Criminal Law Extradition Natural Justice Adjournment of Proceedings Evidence in Extradition Hearings

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur James Hempel

Appellant

Laurence Etheredge

Appellant

Kenneth Moore

First Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge in the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of applications for adjournment by the Magistrate denied the appellants natural justice
  2. 2 Whether s.17(6A) of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth) precluded the adducing of certain evidence by the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

There was no breach of natural justice by the Magistrate in refusing adjournment as the adjournment sought would not have enabled the appellants to adduce evidence admissible under s.17(6A) of the Act; any evidence obtained would be inadmissible to controvert the underlying allegations.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellants pay the costs of the second respondent.