McDade v United Kingdom [1999] FCA 1860

McDade v United Kingdom [1999] FCA 1860

A further adjournment was refused because the appellant had already received a limited adjournment to explore funding and representation, had known of counsel's asserted later availability before filing the motion, the proceedings and extradition process had been unduly protracted, Australia's extradition obligations and the need for expeditious disposition weighed against further delay, and the appeal appeared not to be of great complexity with issues adequately identified in the notice of appeal and primary judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review in Extradition Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Adjournment of Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; adjournment refused and appeal to proceed.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'judicial Review' 'legal Representation' 'eligibility for Surrender' 'expeditious Disposition of Extradition Proceedings']
['extradition' 'administrative Law' 'procedure'] ['adjournment' 'judicial Review' 'legal Representation' 'eligibility for Surrender' 'expeditious Disposition of Extradition Proceedings']

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

Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review in Extradition Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Adjournment of Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal hearing should be adjourned again because the appellant lacked legal representation and wished to be represented by counsel available at a later Full Court sitting.' "How to balance the appellant's interest in obtaining legal representation against the need for expeditious disposition of extradition proceedings and Australia's extradition obligations."]

Ratio Decidendi

A further adjournment was refused because the appellant had already received a limited adjournment to explore funding and representation, had known of counsel's asserted later availability before filing the motion, the proceedings and extradition process had been unduly protracted, Australia's extradition obligations and the need for expeditious disposition weighed against further delay, and the appeal appeared not to be of great complexity with issues adequately identified in the notice of appeal and primary judgment.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; adjournment refused and appeal to proceed.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed 20 December 1999 be dismissed.']