Cabal & Anor v United Mexican States & Ors

The applicants, Cabal and another, sought to restrain the United Mexican States and other respondents from proceeding with an extradition process. The dispute concerned the validity of the extradition request and the proper interpretation of the *Extradition Act 1988* (Cth) in relation to certain alleged offences. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the extradition request was validly made under the *Extradition Act 1988* and whether the alleged offences for which extradition was sought constituted extradition offences within the meaning of the Act. Specifically, the Court was required to consider the interpretation of "dual criminality" and the extent to which the requesting state's characterisation of the offences was determinative.

Gummow and Callinan JJ considered the provisions of the *Extradition Act 1988* and relevant international law principles. Their Honours emphasised that the Act requires a degree of correspondence between the alleged conduct in the requesting state and conduct that would constitute an offence under Australian law. They found that the offences as described in the extradition request did not satisfy the dual criminality requirement, as the conduct alleged did not amount to an extradition offence under Australian law. The Court applied the principle that the court must be satisfied that the conduct alleged constitutes an extradition offence, and this assessment is not solely dependent on the label given to the offence by the requesting state.

The Court made orders restraining the respondents from proceeding with the extradition.