United Kingdom v Forsyth (No 3) [2003] FCA 1097

United Kingdom v Forsyth (No 3) [2003] FCA 1097

Because the Court had quashed the magistrate's bail orders of 22 and 23 September 2003, and because the 22 August 2003 remand order under s 15(2) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) flowed from an unimpeached provisional warrant and remained in effect, there was no injustice in requiring the first respondent to return to custody pending further consideration of bail by the magistrate. His health concerns could be accommodated by custody arrangements at the hospital until he was fit to be removed to a remand prison.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review in Extradition Proceedings Concerning Bail / Supplementary Reasons for Judgment on Implementation of Orders After Bail Orders Were Quashed
Outcome
Further declaration and implementation orders made requiring the first respondent to surrender into custody, with provision for him to be taken into custody at hospital if necessary; the previous costs order stands.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'certiorari' 'mandamus' 'remand in Custody' 'implementation Orders']
['extradition' 'administrative Law' 'bail'] ['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'certiorari' 'mandamus' 'remand in Custody' 'implementation Orders']

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

Judicial Review in Extradition Proceedings Concerning Bail / Supplementary Reasons for Judgment on Implementation of Orders After Bail Orders Were Quashed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the quashing of the magistrate's bail orders of 22 and 23 September 2003 left the magistrate's 22 August 2003 remand in custody order in effect." 'Whether further implementation orders should be made requiring the first respondent to surrender into custody or be taken into custody.' "Whether the first respondent's submissions concerning injustice, preparation for the bail hearing, health, the United Kingdom warrant, and likely sentence justified declining to give effect to the orders quashing bail."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Court had quashed the magistrate's bail orders of 22 and 23 September 2003, and because the 22 August 2003 remand order under s 15(2) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) flowed from an unimpeached provisional warrant and remained in effect, there was no injustice in requiring the first respondent to return to custody pending further consideration of bail by the magistrate. His health concerns could be accommodated by custody arrangements at the hospital until he was fit to be removed to a remand prison.

Court Disposition

Further declaration and implementation orders made requiring the first respondent to surrender into custody, with provision for him to be taken into custody at hospital if necessary; the previous costs order stands.

Orders

  • ['It is hereby declared that the order of the learned stipendiary magistrate of 22 August 2003 under s 15(2) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) whereby he remanded the first respondent in custody, remains in effect.' 'The first respondent is to surrender himself, no later than 4pm on 10 October 2003, into his former...