Rojas v United States of America [2019] FCA 22

Rojas v United States of America [2019] FCA 22

Section 19(2)(c) required the alleged conduct, wherever it occurred, to be hypothetically transposed to New South Wales at the relevant time and assessed against Australian law; it did not import the alleged extraterritorial location of the applicant's conduct into the transposition exercise or require the Federal Court to determine any jurisdictional deficiency in the United States prosecution. On that approach, the alleged conduct would constitute extradition offences under ss 93T and 193C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The supporting materials, including Mr McHenry's affidavit, sufficiently described the alleged conduct and established reasonable grounds, in the Hermanowski sense, for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Review Under S 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth) / Merits Review of a Federal Circuit Court Judge's Determination That the Applicant Was Eligible for Surrender; Originating Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['eligibility for Surrender' 'dual Criminality' 'conduct Statement' 'supporting Documents' 'extraterritorial Jurisdiction']
['extradition' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'criminal Law'] ['eligibility for Surrender' 'dual Criminality' 'conduct Statement' 'supporting Documents' 'extraterritorial Jurisdiction']

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

Application for Review Under S 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth) / Merits Review of a Federal Circuit Court Judge's Determination That the Applicant Was Eligible for Surrender; Originating Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the requirement in s 19(2)(b) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) was met because adequate supporting documents, including a conduct statement, had been produced.' 'Whether the dual criminality requirement in s 19(2)(c) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) was met.' 'Whether an asserted lack of jurisdictional connection between the alleged conduct and the United States affected eligibility for surrender.' 'Whether the conduct alleged would constitute offences under ss 93T and 193C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) if transposed to New South Wales.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 19(2)(c) required the alleged conduct, wherever it occurred, to be hypothetically transposed to New South Wales at the relevant time and assessed against Australian law; it did not import the alleged extraterritorial location of the applicant's conduct into the transposition exercise or require the Federal Court to determine any jurisdictional deficiency in the United States prosecution. On that approach, the alleged conduct would constitute extradition offences under ss 93T and 193C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The supporting materials, including Mr McHenry's affidavit, sufficiently described the alleged conduct and established reasonable grounds, in the Hermanowski sense, for...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The originating application be dismissed, with costs.']