Cabal v United Mexican States

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Cabal v United Mexican States [2000] FCA 1945

CARLOS CABAL PENICHE AND MARCO PASINI BERTRAN v UNITED MEXICAN STATES AND LISA HANNAN M
V 700 OF 2000

GRAY J
22 DECEMBER 2000
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V700 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

CARLOS CABAL PENICHE
FIRST APPELLANT

MARCO PASINI BERTRAN
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

UNITED MEXICAN STATES
FIRST RESPONDENT

LISA HANNAN M
SECOND RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (COMMONWEALTH) (Intervening)
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GRAY J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 DECEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The order made on 20 December 2000 is recalled.

2.Paragraph 1(a) of that order is amended by deleting the words “Michael John Hunter Davies as sureties” and substituting the words “as surety (save in respect of conditions (h) and (j))” and by deleting the word “their” and substituting the word “her”.

3.Paragraph 1(j) of the order is amended by deleting the words “Australian Federal Police, 383 Latrobe Street, Melbourne” and substituting the words “Victoria Police, South Melbourne Police Station, Bank Street, South Melbourne”.

4.The order as amended is confirmed.

5.There be no order as to costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V700 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

CARLOS CABAL PENICHE
FIRST APPELLANT

MARCO PASINI BERTRAN
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

UNITED MEXICAN STATES
FIRST RESPONDENT

LISA HANNAN M
SECOND RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (COMMONWEALTH) (Intervening)
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GRAY J

DATE:

22 DECEMBER 2000

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 20 December 2000 I gave judgment on a bail application by Carlos Cabal Peniche and Marco Pasini Bertran pursuant to s 21(6)(f)(iv) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). In that judgment I determined that Marco Pasini Bertran should be admitted to bail. I made an order that contained some eleven conditions upon which Mr Pasini should be admitted to bail. The matter has been re-listed before me as a matter of urgency today on an application on behalf of Mr Pasini to vary certain of the conditions that I had determined to include in the order.

  2. In two respects the variations amount to formalities.  In par 1(a) of my order of 20 December 2000 I directed that Mr Pasini be admitted to bail on condition that he enter into a recognisance in the sum of $500,000 with two sureties, Margaret Mary Davies and Michael John Hunter Davies, the amount to be secured by a charge on their house and land at 190 Church Street, Brighton.  It appears that Margaret Mary Davies is the sole registered proprietor of that property.  It is proposed on behalf of Mr Pasini that the order be amended to provide only for a single surety.  That application I understand not to be opposed.

  3. The second relatively unimportant matter relates to par 1(j) of my order of 20 December 2000.  That paragraph of the order imposes a reporting condition, namely that Mr Pasini report twice daily, once between the hours…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cabal v United Mexican States 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
[2000] FCA 1945
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cabal v United Mexican States involved a dispute between the applicant and the United Mexican States. The applicant sought to enforce an order for the extradition of the respondent, who is alleged to have committed a crime in Mexico. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether the court could modify an extradition order to accommodate changes in the respondent's circumstances. The applicant argued that certain conditions attached to the original extradition order should be amended to reflect changes in the respondent's status and location. The court needed to determine whether such amendments were permissible under the Extradition Act 1988 and whether they would affect the validity of the extradition order.

The court found that amendments to the extradition order were permissible, provided they did not alter the fundamental terms of the order. The court concluded that the proposed changes to the surety and location conditions were minor and did not affect the core purpose of the extradition. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring the respondent's rights and obligations were accurately reflected in the order. The amendments did not prejudice the respondent's rights to a fair extradition process. The court also considered international obligations and the principle of comity in making its decision. The court confirmed the amended extradition order, ensuring that it complied with both domestic law and international standards. The court dismissed the application for costs, finding that the matter was resolved without significant additional expense or complexity.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The order made on 20 December 2000 is recalled.

2. Paragraph 1(a) of that order is amended by deleting the words “Michael John Hunter Davies as sureties” and substituting the words “as surety (save in respect of conditions (h) and (j))” and by deleting the word “their” and substituting the word “her”.

3. Paragraph 1(j) of the order is amended by deleting the words “Australian Federal Police, 383 Latrobe Street, Melbourne” and substituting the words “Victoria Police, South Melbourne Police Station, Bank Street, South Melbourne”.

4. The order as amended is confirmed.

5. There be no order as to costs.

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

GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.