Prabowo, Subagio Lagaida v Republic of Indonesia & Anor [1997] FCA 384

Prabowo, Subagio Lagaida v Republic of Indonesia & Anor [1997] FCA 384

The appeal failed because the authenticator, the Director of Criminal Affairs in the Indonesian Ministry of Justice, could be found to be an "officer" in or of Indonesia for s 19(7)(a), and because s 11(6) confines the magistrate's eligibility inquiry to the matters in s 19(2)(a)-(d), which did not require or permit the magistrate to decide whether each alleged offence was listed in Article 2 of the Australia-Indonesia Extradition Treaty.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 1997
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Review of a Magistrate's Determination That the Appellant Was Eligible for Surrender and Order Committing Him to Prison to Await Surrender or Release
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['eligibility for Surrender' 'authentication of Extradition Documents' 'meaning of Officer in S 19(7)(a) of the Extradition Act 1988' 'effect of Bilateral Extradition Treaty Limitations' 'role of Magistrate Under S 19 of the Extradition Act 1988']
['extradition Law' 'administrative Law'] ['eligibility for Surrender' 'authentication of Extradition Documents' 'meaning of Officer in S 19(7)(a) of the Extradition Act 1988' 'effect of Bilateral Extradition Treaty Limitations' 'role of Magistrate Under S 19 of the Extradition Act 1988']

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 / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Review of a Magistrate's Determination That the Appellant Was Eligible for Surrender and Order Committing Him to Prison to Await Surrender or Release

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the person who authenticated the supporting documents was an "officer" within the meaning of s 19(7)(a) of the Extradition Act 1988.' 'Whether a magistrate determining eligibility for surrender under s 19 was required or permitted to consider that one alleged offence did not fall, or was not shown to fall, within the list of offences in Article 2 of the Australia-Indonesia Extradition Treaty.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the authenticator, the Director of Criminal Affairs in the Indonesian Ministry of Justice, could be found to be an "officer" in or of Indonesia for s 19(7)(a), and because s 11(6) confines the magistrate's eligibility inquiry to the matters in s 19(2)(a)-(d), which did not require or permit the magistrate to decide whether each alleged offence was listed in Article 2 of the Australia-Indonesia Extradition Treaty.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The appellant, Subagio Lagaida Prabowo, pay the costs of the first respondent, Republic of Indonesia.' 'No order should be made in respect of the second respondent, Mr Cleary, who took no part in the appeal.']