Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kurr v United States of America [2000] FCA 1236 Extradition Act 1988 s 21(6)(f)(iv) Bertran v Minister for Justice (1999) 165 ALR 155 applied Forrest v Kelly (Full Court, unreported, 20 December 1991) cited Holt v Hogan [No 1] (1993) 44 FCR 572 cited McDade v United Kingdom [1999] FCA 509 cited Tima v Republic of Hungary [1999] FCA 691 cited Schoenmakers v Director of Public Prosecutions (1991) 30 FCR 70 cited ANTHONY KENNETH KURR v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ATTORNEY‑GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and MAGISTRATES' COURT OF VICTORIA V 644 OF 2000 SUNDBERG J 4 SEPTEMBER 2000 MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY 644 OF 2000
BETWEEN: ANTHONY KENNETH KURR
APPLICANT
AND: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and
MAGISTRATES' COURT OF VICTORIA
RESPONDENTS
JUDGE: SUNDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER: 4 SEPTEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY 644 OF 2000
BETWEEN: ANTHONY KENNETH KURR
APPLICANT
AND: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and
MAGISTRATES' COURT OF VICTORIA
RESPONDENTS
JUDGE: SUNDBERG J
DATE: 4 SEPTEMBER 2000
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 15 August 2000 a magistrate determined under s 19(9) of the Extradition Act 1988 that the applicant was eligible for surrender to the United States of America in relation to the extradition offences of racketeering (1 count), visa fraud (5 counts) and alien smuggling (5 counts). He was committed to prison to await surrender. On 28 August he applied for review of the magistrate's decision pursuant to s 21(1) of the Act. At the same time he applied for bail under s 21(6)(f)(iv). That is the application now before me. In the circumstances to which it applies, which include the applicant's circumstances, the Court is empowered to order release on bail "if there are special circumstances justifying such a course". 2 There was no dispute about the law relating to applications under s 21(6). It was recently discussed by a Full Court in Bertran v Minister for Justice (1999) 165 ALR 155, and both parties accepted the law as it was stated in the joint judgment of Sundberg and Merkel JJ in that case. It is sufficient to say that the phrase "special circumstances" justifying release on bail means "circumstances different in some way that provides a reason for a more favourable view of the grant of bail than that attending the ordinary run of extradition cases where a person might be expected to be remanded in custody": (1999) 165 ALR at 161 and 165. 3 The principal matters the applicant relied on to establish the existence of special circumstances were:
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