Cabal v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth [2001] FCA 583

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Cabal v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth [2001] FCA 583

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- judicial review – Attorney-General's power under s 27 of Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) – whether intention of Parliament was that power to deliver property seized under warrant to extradition country was contingent upon Attorney-General's own view of whether property may be material as evidence or has been acquired as a result of extradition offence – whether wholly or partly question of objective fact – whether constitutes "jurisdictional facts" for purposes of administrative law. EXTRADITION – judicial review – Attorney-General's power under s 27 of Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) to direct, by notice in writing, that property seized under s 14 be sent to extradition country – whether ss 27(b)(i) and 27(b)(ii) contingent upon "jurisdictional facts" – whether Article 23 of Treaty between Australia and United Mexican States operates to limit or qualify s 27. Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) ss 11(1), 11(6), 14(1)(a), (c), 19(5), 27(a), 27(b)(i), 27(b)(ii), Treaty on Extradition betweenAustralia and the United Mexican States Art 23 Cabal v United Mexican States (No 3) [2000] FCA 1204 referred to Cabal v United Mexican States [2001] FCA 427 referred to Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 at 225ff referred to George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104 at 110 referred to Australian Heritage Commission v Mount Isa Mines Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 297 referred to Australian Heritage Commission v Mount Isa Mines Limited (1995) 60 FCR 456 at 465-466 referred to Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Naumovska (1989) 88 ALR 589 at 601-602 referred to Buck v Comcare (1996) 137 ALR 335 referred to Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL (1998-1999) 46 NSWLR 55 at 64 referred to Karalis v Australian Community Pharmacy (1998) 90 FCR 473 referred to Pharmacy Guild of Australia v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (1996) 70 FCR 462 at 476 referred to Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135 at 158 referred to Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427 at 435-436 referred to Flanagan v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (1995) 60 FCR 149 at 188 referred to Aronson & Dyer, Judicial Review of Administrative Action 2nd ed 2000 at 194, 199 MI Aronson, The Resurgence of Jurisdictional Facts (2001) 12 Public Law Review 17 TERESA PASINI CABAL, ANA MARIA CABAL PASINI, TERESA CABAL PASINI, SOFIA CABAL PASINI and CARLOS CABAL PASINI v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA V150 of 2000 WEINBERG J 21 MAY 2001 MELBOURNE