Pasini v United Mexican States [2002] HCA 3

Pasini v United Mexican States [2002] HCA 3

Section 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), in conferring on the Federal Court a power of 'review' limited to the material before the magistrate, does not amount to an unconstitutional conferral of non-judicial power, nor does s 21(6)(d) invalidate the judicial function of the court. The limitation is a valid definition of the jurisdiction and powers of the federal court, and the legislation is consistent with Chapter III of the Constitution. The application for special leave raises no reason to depart from established precedent or to re-open the authorities relied upon.

Parties
Applicant: Marco Pasini (Bertran); First Respondent: United Mexican States; Second Respondent: Magistrate Hannan; Third Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia (Attorney-General)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court Following Dismissal at First Instance and on Appeal in the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Judicial Power, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, Separation of Powers, Procedural Limits in Extradition, Evidence Limitation in Appeal or Review
Constitutional Law Extradition Law Judicial Power Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Separation of Powers Procedural Limits in Extradition Evidence Limitation in Appeal or Review

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 43 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marco Pasini (Bertran)

Applicant

United Mexican States

First Respondent

Magistrate Hannan

Second Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia (Attorney-General)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court Following Dismissal at First Instance and on Appeal in the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) confers non-judicial power on the Federal Court and is inconsistent with Ch III of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether s 21(6)(d) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), by limiting the Federal Court to 'material that was before the magistrate', is invalid as inhibiting the court from exercising its judicial power, particularly in relation to alleged abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Section 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), in conferring on the Federal Court a power of 'review' limited to the material before the magistrate, does not amount to an unconstitutional conferral of non-judicial power, nor does s 21(6)(d) invalidate the judicial function of the court. The limitation is a valid definition of the jurisdiction and powers of the federal court, and the legislation is consistent with Chapter III of the Constitution. The application for special leave raises no reason to depart from established precedent or to re-open the authorities relied upon.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for special leave to appeal refused.
  • The applicant to pay the costs of the first respondent.