Jacobi, Reiner v United States of America & Anor [1996] FCA 962

Jacobi, Reiner v United States of America & Anor [1996] FCA 962

The material before the Magistrate did not provide reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant committed the offences of conspiracy to import and distribute hashish, as required by the Extradition Act and Treaty. The evidence, chiefly the narrative of the alleged co-conspirator, was uncorroborated, inconsistent, and contained too many unexplained aspects, rendering it insufficient to satisfy the statutory and treaty requirements. Further, even if the events had occurred as described, they did not establish a relevant plan to import or distribute drugs necessary to constitute the offence.

Parties
Applicant: Reiner Jacobi; First Respondent: United States of America; Second Respondent: Chris Owens
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Review of Extradition Eligibility Determination / Judgment Following Application for Review Under S 21(2) Extradition Act 1988
Outcome
Order quashed; costs awarded as specified
Legal Topics
Reasonable Grounds for Belief in Extradition, Description of Conduct Constituting the Offence, Application of Hearsay Evidence, Supporting Documents Under Extradition Act, Requirements Under Australia US Extradition Treaty
Extradition Reasonable Grounds for Belief in Extradition Description of Conduct Constituting the Offence Application of Hearsay Evidence Supporting Documents Under Extradition Act Requirements Under Australia US Extradition Treaty

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reiner Jacobi

Applicant

United States of America

First Respondent

Chris Owens

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review of Extradition Eligibility Determination / Judgment Following Application for Review Under S 21(2) Extradition Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the facts described in the material supplied provided reasonable grounds for believing the offence had been committed and the person sought committed it
  2. 2 Whether the description of conduct constituting the offence requirement was met under the Act and Treaty
  3. 3 Applicability and use of hearsay evidence in extradition review

Ratio Decidendi

The material before the Magistrate did not provide reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant committed the offences of conspiracy to import and distribute hashish, as required by the Extradition Act and Treaty. The evidence, chiefly the narrative of the alleged co-conspirator, was uncorroborated, inconsistent, and contained too many unexplained aspects, rendering it insufficient to satisfy the statutory and treaty requirements. Further, even if the events had occurred as described, they did not establish a relevant plan to import or distribute drugs necessary to constitute the offence.

Court Disposition

Order quashed; costs awarded as specified

Orders

  • The Order of Mr C Owens S.M. in respect of Reiner Jacobi made on 31 May 1995 under Section 19 Extradition Act 1988 (Cwth) be quashed.
  • The First Respondent pay the Applicant's costs of the application for review save for the costs of the application for adjournment heard on 21 and 22 August 1996.