Brock v United States of America [2007] FCAFC 3

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Brock v United States of America [2007] FCAFC 3

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – reviewable decisions and conduct – hearing of whether person liable for extradition order – nature of review of magistrate's decision - nature and scope of review of decision under ss 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) EXTRADITION – extradition to and from foreign States – extradition to foreign States – hearing of whether person liable for extradition order – nature of review of magistrate's decision – nature and scope of review of decision under ss 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) - meaning of reasonable time in which to prepare for the proceedings – whether conditions of remand a relevant consideration - double criminality WORDS AND PHRASES – 'reasonable time to prepare'; 'reasonable time in which to prepare' Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) ss 15, 19, 21 Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596cited Applicant NAFF of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 221 CLR 1applied Ashby v White (1703) 2 Ld Rayd 938applied Australian Heritage Commission v Mount Isa Mines Limited (1995) 60 FCR 456 cited Australian Heritage Commission v Mount Isa Mines Limited (1997) 187 CLR 297 cited Bennett v United Kingdom (2000) 179 ALR 113 cited Board v Board [1919] AC 956cited Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245 considered Cabal v United Mexican States (No 3) (2000) 186 ALR 188 cited Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427 1976 applied Commissioner of Police v Tanos (1958) 98 CLR 383cited Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kainhofer (1995) 185 CLR 528 considered Dutton v O'Shane (2003) 132 FCR 352 at 386 considered and followed Ex parte Hicks (1991) 65 ALJR 398 considered Griffiths v United States of America (2005) 143 FCR 182cited Hermanowski v United States of America (2005) 191 FLR 83 cited Hermanowski v United States of America (2006) 149 FCR 93 cited Kainhofer v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) (1996) 70 FCR 184 cited Knauder v Moore (2002) 127 FCR 327considered and followed Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597 cited Pasini v United Mexican States (2002) 209 CLR 246 considered Plaintiff S157/2002 v The Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 47 cited Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177considered Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355applied Queen v Ludeke; Ex parte Customs Officers Association of Australia, Fourth Division (1985) 155 CLR 513cited Rahardja v Republic of Indonesia [2000] FCA 639 cited Raymond v Honey [1983] 1 AC 1cited Republic of South Africa v Dutton (1997) 77 FCR 128 considered Royal Insurance Co Ltd v Mylius (1926) 38 CLR 477cited Stead v State Government Insurance Office (1986) 161 CLR 141considered Timbarra Protection Coalition v Ross Mining NL (1999) 46 NSWLR 55 cited Todhunter v United States of America (1995) 57 FCR 70 cited Vasiljkovic v The Commonwealth (2006) 228 ALR 447 considered Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378applied Williams v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 278cited GEORGE PAUL BROCK v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND JULIE ANNE HUBER NSD 966 OF 2006