Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Marku v Republic of Albania [2012] FCA 804 Citation: Marku v Republic of Albania [2012] FCA 804
Parties: VALENTIN MARKU v REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA and DEPUTY CHIEF MAGISTRATE OF VICTORIA VALENTIN MARKU v REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA
File number(s): VID 1241 of 2011 AND VID 1242 of 2011
Judge: DODDS-STREETON J
Date of judgment: 31 July 2012
Catchwords: EXTRADITION – Proceedings for eligibility for surrender under s 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) ("Act") – alleged mistaken identity – person on remand claims he is not the person convicted in the extradition country – role of magistrate in s 19 proceedings – whether magistrate may determine identity dispute consistently with assumption that person on remand is validly remanded and an "extraditable person" in accordance with Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kainhofer (1995) 185 CLR 528 – whether language of s 19(3)(a) and (b) direct s 19 magistrate to determine identity – whether structure of Act and desirability of full hearing of identity dispute on the merits under the Act support the applicant's construction ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Jurisdictional fact – whether identity (if determinable under s 19 of the Act) is a jurisdictional fact
Legislation: Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) The Attorney General's Department, Submission No 11 to Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Inquiry into Australia's Extradition Law, Policy and Practice, 6.4
Cases cited: Cabal v Attorney General (Cth) (2001) 113 FCR 154 considered Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kainhofer (1995) 185 CLR 528 applied Federal Republic of Germany v Parker (1998) 84 FCR 323 considered Gedeon v Commissioner of New South Wales Crime Commission (2008) 236 CLR 120 considered Harris v Attorney General (Cth) (1994) 52 FCR 386 considered Papazoglou v Republic of Philippines (1997) 74 FCR 108; 144 ALR 42 cited Shalom v Health Services Commissioner [2009] VSC 514 applied Tervonen v Finland [2008] FCA 781 cited Tervonen v Finland [2008] FCA 1133 considered Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL (1999) 46 NSWLR 55 considered Von Arnim v Federal Republic of Germany (1999) 107 A Crim R 529 cited Woolworths Ltd v Pallas Newco Pty Ltd (2004) 61 NSWLR 707 cited
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