Dutton v O'Shane [2003] FCAFC 195

Dutton v O'Shane [2003] FCAFC 195

The appeal was dismissed because the offences charged qualified as 'extradition offences' under s 5, the double criminality requirement was satisfied as equivalent conduct would constitute offences under NSW law, supporting documents and warrant requirements were met, and the extradition objections were not established on the material. The procedures adopted by the Supreme Court on review were correct under s 21 of the Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Federal Court Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales Decision Reviewing Eligibility for Surrender in Extradition Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['extradition Offences' 'double Criminality' 'supporting Documents Requirements' 'extradition Objections' 'political Offences' 'judicial Review of Administrative Decisions']
['extradition' 'criminal Law' 'administrative Law'] ['extradition Offences' 'double Criminality' 'supporting Documents Requirements' 'extradition Objections' 'political Offences' 'judicial Review of Administrative Decisions']

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 / Full Federal Court Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales Decision Reviewing Eligibility for Surrender in Extradition Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the offences constituted 'extradition offences' under s 5 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth)" 'Whether the double criminality requirement of s 19(2)(c) was met' 'Whether supporting document requirements of s 19(3) were satisfied' 'Whether extradition objections (political prosecution or prejudice, political offence) were made out' 'Proper scope and conduct of review by Supreme Court under s 21 of the Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the offences charged qualified as 'extradition offences' under s 5, the double criminality requirement was satisfied as equivalent conduct would constitute offences under NSW law, supporting documents and warrant requirements were met, and the extradition objections were not established on the material. The procedures adopted by the Supreme Court on review were correct under s 21 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal."]