Matson (Roger) v The United States of America [2016] FCA 1548

Matson (Roger) v The United States of America [2016] FCA 1548

The applicant failed to establish any error of law by the Chief Magistrate; there was no requirement for provision of legal representation, no failure to consider relevant matters, no requirement or authority for the magistrate to rule on the validity of US charges, warrants, or statute of limitations under US law, no basis for extending s 7 extradition objections beyond its language, no abuse of process doctrine available, and no special circumstances justifying bail.

Parties
Applicant: Roger Matson; First Respondent: The United States of America; Second Respondent: His Honour Judge O Rinaudo (Chief Magistrate of Queensland)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Review (extradition) / Judgment on Application Under S 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Review of Magistrate's Decision, Reasonable Time to Prepare Hearing, Extradition Objection, Abuse of Process, Bail Application
Extradition Administrative Law Review of Magistrate's Decision Reasonable Time to Prepare Hearing Extradition Objection Abuse of Process Bail Application

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Matson

Applicant

The United States of America

First Respondent

His Honour Judge O Rinaudo (Chief Magistrate of Queensland)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Review (extradition) / Judgment on Application Under S 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had reasonable time to prepare for the hearing under s 19(1)(d) of the Extradition Act
  2. 2 Whether the supporting documents, arrest warrant and indictments were validly before the magistrate
  3. 3 Whether the charges were statute-barred under US law

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish any error of law by the Chief Magistrate; there was no requirement for provision of legal representation, no failure to consider relevant matters, no requirement or authority for the magistrate to rule on the validity of US charges, warrants, or statute of limitations under US law, no basis for extending s 7 extradition objections beyond its language, no abuse of process doctrine available, and no special circumstances justifying bail.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding.