Marku v Republic of Albania (No 2) [2012] FCA 1182

Marku v Republic of Albania (No 2) [2012] FCA 1182

The application to amend is refused because the proposed amendment lacks reasonable prospects of success. Under the statutory scheme and binding authority, the s 16 notice related to the person on remand, and the validity of the notice and the satisfaction of jurisdictional prerequisites must be assumed by the s 19 magistrate. The argument based on a distinction between the names or a lack of correspondence was not persuasive as the applicant was remanded under the relevant warrant and notice, and any minor differences in names or aliases did not displace the statutory assumptions or jurisdiction of the magistrate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Extradition Proceeding; Application for Leave to Amend / Ruling on Application to Amend Originating Motion
Outcome
Application to amend refused; directions for further orders given.
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Facts' 'identity in Extradition Proceedings' 'powers of Magistrate Under Extradition Act 1988 (cth)']
['extradition' 'administrative Law'] ['jurisdictional Facts' 'identity in Extradition Proceedings' 'powers of Magistrate Under Extradition Act 1988 (cth)']

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 Proceeding; Application for Leave to Amend / Ruling on Application to Amend Originating Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed amendment concerning the validity and applicability of the s 16 notice under Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) should be allowed' "Whether the absence of a s 16 notice in the applicant's name invalidated the magistrate's jurisdiction under s 19(1) of the Act"]

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend is refused because the proposed amendment lacks reasonable prospects of success. Under the statutory scheme and binding authority, the s 16 notice related to the person on remand, and the validity of the notice and the satisfaction of jurisdictional prerequisites must be assumed by the s 19 magistrate. The argument based on a distinction between the names or a lack of correspondence was not persuasive as the applicant was remanded under the relevant warrant and notice, and any minor differences in names or aliases did not displace the statutory assumptions or jurisdiction of the magistrate.

Court Disposition

Application to amend refused; directions for further orders given.

Orders

  • ['The application made by notice of motion filed on 3 May 2012 be refused.' 'There be a directions hearing on 15 November 2012 at 10:15am.' 'On or before 9 November 2012, the parties file and serve minutes of proposed orders and any written submissions (not to exceed three pages).']