Castle v United States [2018] FCA 931

Castle v United States [2018] FCA 931

The applicant failed to establish any factual or legal basis in Australian law for immunity from extradition processes. He was not shown to be an internationally protected person under the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976 (Cth), a person entitled to privileges or immunities under the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 (Cth), or a diplomatic or analogous office holder entitled to immunity. The evidence did not prove that the International Treasury Control had any recognised status with the United Nations or the Australian government capable of conferring immunity. Accordingly, the second respondent had jurisdiction to conduct the s 19...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Review Under S 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth) and Jurisdictional Objection Concerning Extradition Processes / Preliminary Determination of the Applicant's Objection to the Jurisdiction of the Second Respondent and This Court
Outcome
The applicant's jurisdictional objection was dismissed, and the Court declared it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the s 21 review.
Legal Topics
['eligibility for Surrender Under S 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)' 'review Under S 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)' 'judicial Review Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth)' 'claimed Internationally Protected Person Status' 'privileges and Immunities of International Organisations' 'diplomatic Immunity']
['extradition' 'administrative Law' 'constitutional Law' 'diplomatic and International Organisation Immunities'] ['eligibility for Surrender Under S 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)' 'review Under S 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)' 'judicial Review Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth)' 'claimed Internationally Protected Person Status' 'privileges and Immunities of International Organisations' 'diplomatic Immunity']

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) and Jurisdictional Objection Concerning Extradition Processes / Preliminary Determination of the Applicant's Objection to the Jurisdiction of the Second Respondent and This Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was immune from processes under the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) because of his asserted status as an internationally protected person connected with the International Treasury Control.' "Whether the second respondent had jurisdiction to conduct proceedings under s 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) and determine the applicant's eligibility for surrender." "Whether this Court had jurisdiction under s 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) to hear and determine the applicant's review application." 'Whether any Australian statute or legal principle conferred the immunity claimed by the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish any factual or legal basis in Australian law for immunity from extradition processes. He was not shown to be an internationally protected person under the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976 (Cth), a person entitled to privileges or immunities under the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 (Cth), or a diplomatic or analogous office holder entitled to immunity. The evidence did not prove that the International Treasury Control had any recognised status with the United Nations or the Australian government capable of conferring immunity. Accordingly, the second respondent had jurisdiction to conduct the s 19...

Court Disposition

The applicant's jurisdictional objection was dismissed, and the Court declared it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the s 21 review.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's objection to the jurisdiction of the second respondent to conduct proceedings under s 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of the applicant is dismissed." "This Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine, pursuant to s 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), the applicant's application...