Brackenridge v New Zealand - [1998] QCA 301

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 301
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 7678 of 1998

Brisbane
[Brackenridge v New Zealand]
BETWEEN:
DAVID JOHN BRACKENRIDGE
(Applicant)

AND:
NEW ZEALAND
(Respondent)

Pincus JA
Thomas JA
Ambrose J

Judgment delivered 2 October 1998
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the order made.
APPLICATION DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:	Procedure - application to transfer proceedings to Full Court of the Federal Court - Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) - extradition proceedings - whether appeals to state courts impliedly excluded - application of s.3 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 - whether extradition proceedings civil or criminal.
DPP of the Commonwealth v Kainhofer (1995) 185 CLR 528 Hempel v Moore (1987) 70 ALR 714 R v Governor of Brixton Prison ex parte Levin [1997] AC 741 Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) ss.34, 35, 38 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) ss.3, 7(3) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s.39
Counsel:	Mr B. Devereaux for the appellant Ms K. Firster for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	4September1998

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 7678 of 1998.

Brisbane

Before Pincus J.A.

Thomas J.A. Ambrose J.

[Brackenridge v. New Zealand]

BETWEEN:

DAVID JOHN BRACKENRIDGE

(Applicant)

AND:

NEW ZEALAND

(Respondent)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

Judgment delivered 2 October 1998

I have read the reasons of Thomas J.A. The case was argued on the basis that an appeal does

not lie to this Court from an order of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on an application for

review under s. 35 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). Under that section such applications may be

made to the Federal Court or to the Supreme Court of the relevant State or Territory. Section 35(3)

gives the Full Court of the Federal Court jurisdiction to decide appeals from orders of the Federal Court

or a Supreme Court made on applications for review.

The basic grant of federal jurisdiction to State courts is made by s. 39(2) of the Judiciary Act

1903 (Cth), which applies to criminal as well as civil matters: Bull (1974) 131 C.L.R. 203 at 258,

Ward (1978) 140 C.L.R. 584 at 589. Further, the grant of jurisdiction made by s. 39 is one of appellate as well as original jurisdiction: Ah Yick v. Lehmert (1905) 2 C.L.R. 593. Jurisdiction in

respect of criminal matters is also conferred on State courts by s. 68 of the Judiciary Act 1903, but

not in such a way as to touch proceedings of the present kind. A third grant of appellate jurisdiction is

that made by s. 7(3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth):

"Where it appears that the only matters for determination in a proceeding by way of an appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Supreme…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brackenridge v New Zealand and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1998] QCA 301
Decision Date: 2/10/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brackenridge v New Zealand involved the application of the defendant, a New Zealand citizen, to transfer proceedings from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centered around the interpretation of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) in the context of extradition proceedings, specifically whether appeals to state courts were impliedly excluded and whether such proceedings were civil or criminal in nature.

The legal issues before the court included whether the appeals to state courts were impliedly excluded under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) and the application of section 3 of that Act. A critical aspect of the case was determining whether extradition proceedings were classified as civil or criminal, which would affect the jurisdiction of the courts to which such proceedings could be transferred.

The court held that the appeals to state courts were not impliedly excluded under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), and extradition proceedings were considered to be criminal in nature. The court found that extradition proceedings, while involving a civil aspect, primarily involve the enforcement of criminal law and therefore were deemed criminal. The application to transfer the proceedings was dismissed based on this determination.

As a result of the court's decision, the defendant's application to transfer the proceedings to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed, and the matter remained in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The court's ruling clarified the interpretation of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) in relation to extradition proceedings and the classification of such proceedings as criminal.

Orders