Ngo v United States of America [2009] FCAFC 87

Ngo v United States of America [2009] FCAFC 87

The appeal failed because the material before the Magistrate and primary judge provided reasonable grounds for believing the appellant was a participant in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in Australia, and the conduct charged would constitute an offence under the relevant New South Wales and Commonwealth law. Both the reasonable belief and dual criminality requirements of the Extradition Act and Treaty were satisfied. There was no legal or factual error in the Magistrate's or primary judge's determinations.

Parties
Appellant: Truong Lam Ngo; First Respondent: United States of America; Second Respondent: Magistrate Pat O'Shane
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales to Full Court of the Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Dual Criminality, Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs, Standard for Eligibility for Surrender, Application of Extradition Treaties, Interpretation of Extradition Act
Extradition Criminal Law Dual Criminality Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs Standard for Eligibility for Surrender Application of Extradition Treaties Interpretation of Extradition Act

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Truong Lam Ngo

Appellant

United States of America

First Respondent

Magistrate Pat O'Shane

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales to Full Court of the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were reasonable grounds for believing the appellant committed the alleged offence under the Extradition (United States of America) Regulations and Treaty on Extradition, as required by s 19(2)(b) of the Extradition Act
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of dual criminality under s 19(2)(c) of the Extradition Act were satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the material before the Magistrate and primary judge provided reasonable grounds for believing the appellant was a participant in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in Australia, and the conduct charged would constitute an offence under the relevant New South Wales and Commonwealth law. Both the reasonable belief and dual criminality requirements of the Extradition Act and Treaty were satisfied. There was no legal or factual error in the Magistrate's or primary judge's determinations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.