Barney v United Kingdom

Case [2012] FCA 51

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barney v United Kingdom [2012] FCA 51

Citation: Barney v United Kingdom [2012] FCA 51
Parties: MARCUS BARNEY AKA ALAN TONY HARTE v UNITED KINGDOM and MAGISTRATE HUBER
File number: NSD 122 of 2012
Judge: ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment: 3 February 2012
Catchwords:

EXTRADITION – bail – magistrate’s refusal to remand applicant on bail

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review of decision of magistrate – whether magistrate erred in law in concluding that “special circumstances” under s 15(6) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) not made out
Legislation: Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), s 15(2) and 15(6)
Cases cited: Australian Gas Light Co v Valuer-General (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 126 applied
Cabal v United Mexican States (2001) 180 ALR 593 considered
Cabal v United Mexican States (2000) 174 ALR 747 considered
Health Care Complaints Commission v Karalasingham [2007] NSWCA 267 applied
Industry Research & Development Board v Bridgestone Australia Ltd (2001) 109 FCR 564 cited
McCrea v Minister for Customs and Justice (2005) 145 FCR 269 considered
Roy Morgan Research v Commissioner of Taxation (2010) 184 FCR 448 followed
United Mexican States v Cabal (2001) 209 CLR 165 applied
United States v Green (2009) 257 ALR 252 not followed
Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council (2001) 202 CLR 439 applied
Williams v Bill Williams Pty Ltd [1971] 1 NSWLR 547 applied
Date of hearing: 2 February 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 52
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr I Lloyd QC with Mr A Tokley
Solicitor for the Applicant: Leigh Johnson
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr S Lloyd SC
Solicitors for the First Respondent: Blake Dawson
The Second Respondent filed a submitting appearance, save as to costs

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 122 of 2012
BETWEEN:

MARCUS BARNEY AKA ALAN TONY HARTE
Applicant
AND:

UNITED KINGDOM
First Respondent

MAGISTRATE HUBER
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

ROBERTSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 FEBRUARY 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 122 of 2012
BETWEEN:

MARCUS BARNEY AKA ALAN TONY HARTE
Applicant
AND:

UNITED KINGDOM
First Respondent

MAGISTRATE HUBER
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

ROBERTSON J

DATE:

3 FEBRUARY 2012

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision made on 24 January 2012 by a magistrate under s 15 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) (“Extradition Act”) refusing to remand Mr Barney, the applicant, on bail.

  2. The application for judicial review was filed in this Court on 25 January 2012 and came on for urgent final hearing on 2 February 2012 given that the applicant was remanded in custody.

  3. The application is brought under s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) (“Judiciary Act”),…

Continue reading Barney v United Kingdom

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Barney v United Kingdom [2012] FCA 51
Case
[2012] FCA 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Barney brought an application against the United Kingdom for judicial review of a decision to refuse him bail while he awaited extradition proceedings. The application was heard and dismissed by the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the Court was whether the magistrate had erred in concluding that special circumstances under section 15(6) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) had not been made out in the application for bail. Barney argued that the magistrate had failed to consider all relevant matters and had applied an incorrect legal test in reaching his decision.

The Court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the applicable case law in determining whether the magistrate had erred in law. The Court found that the magistrate had correctly applied the law and had given appropriate consideration to the relevant matters. The Court held that there were no special circumstances present that would warrant the exercise of the Court's discretion to order bail. The Court dismissed the application and ordered that Barney pay the costs of the first respondent.

In reaching this decision, the Court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory framework for extradition and bail applications. The Court noted that the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) provides a clear process for the consideration of bail applications in extradition cases, and that the magistrate had followed this process in reaching his decision. The Court also noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the presence of special circumstances that would warrant the exercise of the Court's discretion to order bail. As such, the Court dismissed the application and ordered that Barney pay the costs of the first respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.