Cabal v Secretary, Department of Justice (Victoria) [2000] FCA 1227

Cabal v Secretary, Department of Justice (Victoria) [2000] FCA 1227

Port Phillip Prison is a 'prison' for the purposes of s 19(9)(a) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), as the definition in the legislation is inclusive of such facilities. The principle that persons detained should not ordinarily be subject to costs orders applies in this case for proceedings before the primary judge, but not on appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed except as to costs
Legal Topics
['definition of Prison Under Extradition Act 1988 (cth)' 'costs in Extradition Proceedings']
['extradition' 'criminal Law'] ['definition of Prison Under Extradition Act 1988 (cth)' 'costs in Extradition Proceedings']

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

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Port Phillip Prison is a 'prison' for the purposes of s 19(9)(a) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth)" 'Whether costs should be ordered against appellants detained by authority of the State']

Ratio Decidendi

Port Phillip Prison is a 'prison' for the purposes of s 19(9)(a) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), as the definition in the legislation is inclusive of such facilities. The principle that persons detained should not ordinarily be subject to costs orders applies in this case for proceedings before the primary judge, but not on appeal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed except as to costs

Orders

  • ['Save in relation to the order for costs made by Gray J on 14 July 2000 the appeal is dismissed.' 'Paragraph 2 of the said order is set aside and in lieu thereof there be no orders as to the costs of the proceedings before Gray J.' "The appellants pay the first respondent's costs of this appeal."]