Cabal v United Mexican States (No 6)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Cabal v United Mexican States (No 6) [2000] FCA 651

COSTS – extradition proceeding – two applications for bail – whether costs awarded in bail applications - jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia to award costs – comparison with awards of costs in criminal proceedings.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth): s 43

Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) (1986) ATPR 40‑748 cited

R v Scott (1993) 42 FCR 1 cited

The King v Clifford (1824) 2 LJ OS (KB) 210 cited
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 cited
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 cited

CARLOS CABAL PENICHE & MARCO PASINI BERTRAN v UNITED MEXICAN STATES & ANOR (No 6 )

V 728 of 1999

GOLDBERG J
MELBOURNE
17 MAY 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	No V 728 of 1999

BETWEEN:

CARLOS CABAL PENICHE
First Applicant

MARCO PASINI BERTRAN
Second Applicant

AND:

UNITED MEXICAN STATES
First Respondent

LISA HANNAN M
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 MAY 2000
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.There be no order as to costs in respect of the applicants’ applications, filed on 17 December 1999 and 9 February 2000, that they be released on bail until the review has been conducted.

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	No V 728 of 1999

BETWEEN:

CARLOS CABAL PENICHE
First Applicant

MARCO PASINI BERTRAN
Second Applicant

AND:

UNITED MEXICAN STATES
First Respondent

LISA HANNAN M
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE:	17 MAY 2000
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 17 December 1999 Ms L A Hannan, a Magistrate in Victoria, determined pursuant to s 19(9) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”) that the first applicant (“Mr Cabal”) and the second applicant (“Mr Pasini”) were persons eligible for surrender to the first respondent (“Mexico”) in relation to a number of extradition offences.

2. The Magistrate, pursuant to s 19(9) of the Act, by warrant, ordered that the applicants be committed to the Melbourne Assessment Prison or Port Phillip Prison to await, in relation to the offences the subject of her determination, surrender under a surrender warrant or release pursuant to an order under s 22(5) of the Act.

3. On the same day as the Magistrate issued the warrants, the applicants filed an application pursuant to s 21(1) of the Act for a review of the Magistrate’s decision to commit the applicants to prison. In that application the applicants sought by way of interim relief orders pursuant to s 21(6)(f)(iv) of the Act that they be released on bail pending the review of the Magistrate’s decision. On 4 January 2000 I dismissed the applicants’ application for bail but I reserved liberty to the applicants to renew their application for bail in the terms set out in my reasons.

4. On 9 February 2000 the applicants…