Barney v United Kingdom [2012] FCA 51

Barney v United Kingdom [2012] FCA 51

No jurisdictional error was shown; the magistrate’s conclusion that there were not special circumstances justifying remand on bail under s 15(6) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) was open on the evidence and correct legal principle.

Parties
Applicant: Marcus Barney aka Alan Tony Harte; First Respondent: United Kingdom; Second Respondent: Magistrate Huber
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Bail, Judicial Review, Special Circumstances
Extradition Administrative Law Bail Judicial Review Special Circumstances

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marcus Barney aka Alan Tony Harte

Applicant

United Kingdom

First Respondent

Magistrate Huber

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in law in concluding that 'special circumstances' under s 15(6) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) were not made out and refusing bail
  2. 2 Whether the facts before the magistrate necessarily constituted special circumstances justifying bail within the meaning of the Act
  3. 3 Whether jurisdictional error was shown in the magistrate’s decision

Ratio Decidendi

No jurisdictional error was shown; the magistrate’s conclusion that there were not special circumstances justifying remand on bail under s 15(6) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) was open on the evidence and correct legal principle.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent.