McDade v United Kingdom [1999] FCA 234

McDade v United Kingdom [1999] FCA 234

The applicant did not establish special circumstances under s 21(6)(f)(iv). The relied-upon factors, except primary care, were of kinds treated in prior decisions as not special, and the primary care evidence lacked additional medical or other evidence giving it the requisite weight. The asserted difficulty with Immigration Review Tribunal proceedings was also unsupported. The jurisdictional precondition for considering bail was therefore not met.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Extradition; Notice of Motion for Release on Bail Pending Review / Motion Seeking Release on Bail Pending Hearing of Application for Review of Decision Under S 19(9) of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)
Outcome
Motion refused; costs reserved for submissions.
Legal Topics
['release Pending Review' 'special Circumstances' 'risk of Absconding' 'primary Carer Responsibilities' 'immigration Review Tribunal Proceedings']
['extradition' 'bail' 'administrative Review'] ['release Pending Review' 'special Circumstances' 'risk of Absconding' 'primary Carer Responsibilities' 'immigration Review Tribunal 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Extradition; Notice of Motion for Release on Bail Pending Review / Motion Seeking Release on Bail Pending Hearing of Application for Review of Decision Under S 19(9) of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there were special circumstances under s 21(6)(f)(iv) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) justifying release of the applicant on bail pending review.' "Whether the applicant's low risk of flight, previous compliance with bail, family and property connections, role as primary carer, migration history, and need to participate in Immigration Review Tribunal proceedings were sufficient to constitute special circumstances."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish special circumstances under s 21(6)(f)(iv). The relied-upon factors, except primary care, were of kinds treated in prior decisions as not special, and the primary care evidence lacked additional medical or other evidence giving it the requisite weight. The asserted difficulty with Immigration Review Tribunal proceedings was also unsupported. The jurisdictional precondition for considering bail was therefore not met.

Court Disposition

Motion refused; costs reserved for submissions.

Orders

  • ['The motion be refused.' 'Costs reserved for submissions.']