Matson (Roger) v Keenan [2016] FCA 1549

Matson (Roger) v Keenan [2016] FCA 1549

The application failed because, at the s 16 and s 12 commencement stages, the relevant inquiry was limited to whether the applicant was an extraditable person. The uncontested matters were that the offences were extradition offences and the applicant was outside the USA; the only disputed matter was whether an arrest warrant was in force. The affidavits before the Minister and Magistrate stated that the re-issued USA arrest warrant remained valid or in force. Neither decision-maker was required to determine under USA law whether the charges were statute-barred or whether the indictment or warrant was invalid. The alleged delay, dilatory prosecution, abuse of process, and the applicant's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Relief Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) Concerning Extradition Decisions Under Ss 12 and 16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth) / Judgment After Hearing of Application for Review
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extraditable Person' 'form 5 Arrest Warrant' 'form 9 Notice of Receipt of Extradition Request' 'relevant Considerations' 'wrong Question' 'unreasonableness' 'illogicality or Irrationality' 'abuse of Process' 'executive Lawlessness']
['extradition' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['extraditable Person' 'form 5 Arrest Warrant' 'form 9 Notice of Receipt of Extradition Request' 'relevant Considerations' 'wrong Question' 'unreasonableness' 'illogicality or Irrationality' 'abuse of Process' 'executive Lawlessness']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Relief Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) Concerning Extradition Decisions Under Ss 12 and 16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth) / Judgment After Hearing of Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Minister and Magistrate erred by failing to take into account relevant considerations or asking the wrong questions when making the s 16 and s 12 decisions.' "Whether the charges were statute-barred, the superseding indictment, the re-issued warrant, alleged dilatory prosecution, or the applicant's poor health were relevant at the s 12 or s 16 stage." 'Whether the s 12 and s 16 decisions were invalidated by acts of executive lawlessness or abuse of process.' 'Whether the s 12 and s 16 decisions were unreasonable, illogical and/or irrational.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because, at the s 16 and s 12 commencement stages, the relevant inquiry was limited to whether the applicant was an extraditable person. The uncontested matters were that the offences were extradition offences and the applicant was outside the USA; the only disputed matter was whether an arrest warrant was in force. The affidavits before the Minister and Magistrate stated that the re-issued USA arrest warrant remained valid or in force. Neither decision-maker was required to determine under USA law whether the charges were statute-barred or whether the indictment or warrant was invalid. The alleged delay, dilatory prosecution, abuse of process, and the applicant's...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first and third respondents' costs of the proceeding."]