Cabal v Vanstone [2000] FCA 1306

Cabal v Vanstone [2000] FCA 1306

The Minister's decisions to issue s 16 notices under the Extradition Act were open to her, even in light of the amparo stays; the Minister took proper advice and her opinion was not formed unreasonably or in bad faith. Matters of prescription or disclosure did not invalidate the requests or the Minister's process. The Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to consider or declare the appellant not to be an 'extraditable person' under s 39B. No legal or factual basis for relief was made out and the appeals are dismissed.

Parties
First Appellant: Carlos Cabal (Peniche); Second Appellant: Marco Pasini (Bertran); First Respondent: The Honourable Amanda Vanstone; Second Respondent: David McDonnell; Third Respondent: Barry Braun M; Fourth Respondent: Lisa Hannan M
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Orders Dismissing Applications for Judicial Review Under S 39 B(1) and (1 A) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extradition—meaning of 'extraditable Person', Judicial Review of Ministerial Decisions, Effect of Foreign Legal Stays (amparo) on Arrest Warrants, Treaty Interpretation
Administrative Law Extradition Criminal Law Extradition—meaning of 'extraditable Person' Judicial Review of Ministerial Decisions Effect of Foreign Legal Stays (amparo) on Arrest Warrants Treaty Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carlos Cabal (Peniche)

First Appellant

Marco Pasini (Bertran)

Second Appellant

The Honourable Amanda Vanstone

First Respondent

David McDonnell

Second Respondent

Barry Braun M

Third Respondent

Lisa Hannan M

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Orders Dismissing Applications for Judicial Review Under S 39 B(1) and (1 A) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amparo stays granted by Mexican courts meant there were no 'warrants in force' for the purposes of s 6(a)(i) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the Minister erred in law or acted unreasonably in forming the opinion that the appellants were 'extraditable persons'
  3. 3 Whether the requests from Mexico were invalid for failure to disclose the existence of amparo stays

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister's decisions to issue s 16 notices under the Extradition Act were open to her, even in light of the amparo stays; the Minister took proper advice and her opinion was not formed unreasonably or in bad faith. Matters of prescription or disclosure did not invalidate the requests or the Minister's process. The Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to consider or declare the appellant not to be an 'extraditable person' under s 39B. No legal or factual basis for relief was made out and the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants pay the costs of the respondents.