McCrea v Minister for Customs & Justice [2004] FCA 1273

McCrea v Minister for Customs & Justice [2004] FCA 1273

Section 22(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) requires only the provision of an undertaking in the terms set out in the section; there is no additional requirement that the undertaking be effective to prevent execution. Questions about the effectiveness or enforceability of the undertaking are not justiciable and are matters for consideration by the executive, not the Court.

Parties
Applicant: Michael McCrea; Respondent: Minister for Customs and Justice
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Death Penalty Undertakings, Judicial Review of Extradition Decisions, International Comity, Principle of Non Adjudication, Statutory Construction
Extradition Criminal Law Administrative Law Death Penalty Undertakings Judicial Review of Extradition Decisions International Comity Principle of Non Adjudication Statutory Construction

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 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael McCrea

Applicant

Minister for Customs and Justice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 22(3)(c)(iii) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) requires an objectively effective undertaking that the death penalty will not be carried out, or merely the provision of an undertaking in the required terms
  2. 2 Whether the undertaking given by Singapore satisfied the statutory requirement

Ratio Decidendi

Section 22(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) requires only the provision of an undertaking in the terms set out in the section; there is no additional requirement that the undertaking be effective to prevent execution. Questions about the effectiveness or enforceability of the undertaking are not justiciable and are matters for consideration by the executive, not the Court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The question of costs is reserved.