Habib v The Kingdom of Belgium [2004] FCA 486

Habib v The Kingdom of Belgium [2004] FCA 486

Applications for bail in both proceedings are refused because, on the facts, special circumstances justifying release on bail have not been established, and risk of flight exists; applicant’s prospects of success in substantive reviews are not strong.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Extradition Application (bail Applications) / Interlocutory Application for Bail Pending Review of Extradition and Committal Orders
Outcome
Applications for bail refused in both proceedings
Legal Topics
['extradition' 'bail' 'abuse of Process' 'special Circumstances' 'dual Criminality']
['criminal Law' 'international Law'] ['extradition' 'bail' 'abuse of Process' 'special Circumstances' 'dual Criminality']

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 Application (bail Applications) / Interlocutory Application for Bail Pending Review of Extradition and Committal Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether applicant has established special circumstances justifying grant of bail in extradition proceedings' 'Whether risk of flight exists precluding bail' 'Whether detention pending extradition is disproportionate to likely sentence' 'Validity of extradition warrant and process' 'Deficiencies in translation and authentication of Belgian warrants']

Ratio Decidendi

Applications for bail in both proceedings are refused because, on the facts, special circumstances justifying release on bail have not been established, and risk of flight exists; applicant’s prospects of success in substantive reviews are not strong.

Court Disposition

Applications for bail refused in both proceedings

Orders

  • ['In proceeding W5 of 2004: (a) applicant’s notice of motion dated 12 March 2004 refused; (b) no order as to costs.' 'In proceeding W36 of 2004: (a) applicant’s notice of motion dated 15 March 2004 refused; (b) no order as to costs.']