Peniche v Vanstone [1999] FCA 916

Peniche v Vanstone [1999] FCA 916

Despite there being serious questions to be tried regarding the effect of the Amparo stays on the validity of the s 16 notices and procedural fairness, the applicants failed to establish on the balance of convenience that interlocutory injunctive relief was warranted. The claims, while raising legal issues, were not of sufficient strength, and no exceptional situation was made out to justify fragmenting the extradition process. The proceedings should continue without interlocutory injunctions.

Parties
Applicant: Marco Pasini Bertran; Applicant: Carlos Cabal Peniche; First Respondent: Hon. Amanda Vanstone; Second Respondent: David McDonnell; Third Respondent: Brian Barrow M; Third Respondent: Barry Braun M; Fourth Respondent: Lisa Hannan M
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctions in Extradition Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications for Injunctive Relief, Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Applications for interlocutory injunctions dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Validity of Extradition Notices, Procedural Fairness (natural Justice), Status of Foreign Arrest Warrants Under Stay, Interlocutory Injunctions, Fragmentation Principle in Proceedings
Extradition Administrative Law Validity of Extradition Notices Procedural Fairness (natural Justice) Status of Foreign Arrest Warrants Under Stay Interlocutory Injunctions Fragmentation Principle in Proceedings

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 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marco Pasini Bertran

Applicant

Carlos Cabal Peniche

Applicant

Hon. Amanda Vanstone

First Respondent

David McDonnell

Second Respondent

Brian Barrow M

Third Respondent

Barry Braun M

Third Respondent

Lisa Hannan M

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunctions in Extradition Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications for Injunctive Relief, Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether notices issued under s 16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) were valid given stays of arrest warrants in Mexico (Amparo proceedings)
  2. 2 Whether the Attorney-General breached the requirements of procedural fairness in issuing s 16 notices
  3. 3 Whether requests for extradition by Mexico were valid where there were two on foot for the same person

Ratio Decidendi

Despite there being serious questions to be tried regarding the effect of the Amparo stays on the validity of the s 16 notices and procedural fairness, the applicants failed to establish on the balance of convenience that interlocutory injunctive relief was warranted. The claims, while raising legal issues, were not of sufficient strength, and no exceptional situation was made out to justify fragmenting the extradition process. The proceedings should continue without interlocutory injunctions.

Court Disposition

Applications for interlocutory injunctions dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for interlocutory injunctions be dismissed in each matter.
  • Applicant to pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application.