Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
EXTRADITION – proceedings in France for extradition for alleged offences under s 232(6) of the Corporations Law – application to this Court for relief relating to alleged misleading conduct by the DPP in connection with those proceedings – whether submission of allegedly misleading affidavit to the French court is an abuse of process – appropriate relief if there is found to be an abuse of process. CRIMINAL LAW – application of s 65 of the Justices Act where incorrect statement in charge – whether reliance can be placed on s 15C of the Crimes Act to amend the charge – whether variation of charge by application of either of those provisions amounts to mere variance – whether application of either of those provisions requires recharging to constitute new proceedings for the purposes of limitation period – whether charge reformulated in reliance on either of these provisions constitutes institution of fresh proceedings under s 1316 of the Corporations Law.
Corporations Law ss 232(6), 232(6A), 1311(1), 1316, 1317FA(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 15B, 15C Justices Act 1902 (NSW) ss21, 22, 23 56, 57, 65, 133 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 68 Jervis' Act 11 & 12 Vic. c. 43 (1848)
Treaty on Extradition between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of France (31 August 1988) Extradition (Republic of France) Regulations Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court; Ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42, distinguished Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, cited Lego Australia Pty Ltd v Paraggio (1994) 52 FCR 542, distinguished Ex parte Findlay; Re James (1953) 70 WN 115, considered Ex parte Lovell; Re Buckley [1938]SR 153, considered Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254, cited National Companies and Securities Commission v Falk (1993) 10 ACSR 218, cited Parmeter v Proctor (1949) 66 WN 48, considered Ex parte Kirkpatrick (1916) 16 SR 541, cited Ex parte Williams; Re Singleton (1928) 28 SR 616, considered Carcosa Pty Ltd v Czerwaniw as agent for Department of Health (1997) 93 A Crim R 287, considered Hedberg v Woodhall (1913) 15 CLR 531, cited Regina v Justelius [1973] 1 NSWLR 471, considered
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate