Federal Republic of Germany v Schlieske, J. & Anor [1986] FCA 459

Federal Republic of Germany v Schlieske, J. & Anor [1986] FCA 459

The Magistrate was required only to be satisfied by the production of a duly authenticated foreign warrant and supporting documents. Regulation 4 and s.11(2) are requirements for the Attorney-General, not the Magistrate. The decision to release the respondent was erroneous and should be quashed.

Parties
Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany; First Respondent: Jens Ingo Schlieske; Second Respondent: Kevin Sydney Anderson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Magistrate's Decision (extradition) / Judgment on Review
Outcome
Applicant's review application granted. Magistrate's release order quashed. Respondent committed to await extradition.
Legal Topics
Extradition Procedure, Requirement of Evidence, Authentication of Foreign Documents, Interpretation of Extradition (foreign States) Act 1966, Application of Regulations
Extradition Criminal Law Extradition Procedure Requirement of Evidence Authentication of Foreign Documents Interpretation of Extradition (foreign States) Act 1966 Application of Regulations

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Federal Republic of Germany

Applicant

Jens Ingo Schlieske

First Respondent

Kevin Sydney Anderson

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Magistrate's Decision (extradition) / Judgment on Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant required to produce evidence to Magistrate or to Attorney-General only
  2. 2 Whether Magistrate required to be satisfied that evidence has been produced to Attorney-General
  3. 3 Whether notice by Attorney-General must accord strictly with wording of warrant by applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrate was required only to be satisfied by the production of a duly authenticated foreign warrant and supporting documents. Regulation 4 and s.11(2) are requirements for the Attorney-General, not the Magistrate. The decision to release the respondent was erroneous and should be quashed.

Court Disposition

Applicant's review application granted. Magistrate's release order quashed. Respondent committed to await extradition.

Orders

  • The decision of the second respondent made on 26 September 1986 that the first respondent be released be quashed.
  • The first respondent be committed to prison in the custody of the Keeper of the Prison at Malabar in the State of New South Wales to await the warrant of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia for the surrender of the first respondent to the applicant.