McDade v United Kingdom [1999] FCA 865

McDade v United Kingdom [1999] FCA 865

The Court granted only a limited adjournment because legal representation was desirable and necessary for the serious extradition appeal, but an adjournment of three or four months was not justified given the uncertainty of funding from the proposed land sale, the existing delay, and Australia's extradition obligations. A shorter adjournment to 23 December 1999 would allow other funding options to be explored.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal; Motion for Adjournment / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia After Dismissal of an Application for Review of a Magistrate's Extradition Eligibility Decision
Outcome
Motion for adjournment granted for a limited period; appeal hearing adjourned to 23 December 1999.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'eligibility for Surrender' 'legal Representation' 'judicial Review' 'bail Pending Extradition Appeal']
['extradition' 'administrative Law' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'eligibility for Surrender' 'legal Representation' 'judicial Review' 'bail Pending Extradition Appeal']

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

Extradition Appeal; Motion for Adjournment / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia After Dismissal of an Application for Review of a Magistrate's Extradition Eligibility Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing of the appeal should be adjourned because the appellant was unrepresented and lacked funds for legal representation.' "Whether the proposed sale of part of the appellant's land justified an adjournment until the following year." "How to balance the appellant's need for legal representation against delay and Australia's extradition obligations."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted only a limited adjournment because legal representation was desirable and necessary for the serious extradition appeal, but an adjournment of three or four months was not justified given the uncertainty of funding from the proposed land sale, the existing delay, and Australia's extradition obligations. A shorter adjournment to 23 December 1999 would allow other funding options to be explored.

Court Disposition

Motion for adjournment granted for a limited period; appeal hearing adjourned to 23 December 1999.

Orders

  • ['The hearing of the appeal is adjourned to 23 December 1999.']