Castle v United States

Case [2018] FCA 931

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Castle v United States [2018] FCA 931

File number: VID 1415 of 2017
Judge: MORTIMER J
Date of judgment: 19 June 2018
Catchwords: EXTRADITION – application for review under s 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) – preliminary objection to jurisdiction of second respondent to make orders determining eligibility of applicant for surrender under s 19 – applicant argued immunity on basis of claimed relationship to contended international organisation – no basis for immunity established – objection dismissed
Legislation:

Constitution, Ch III

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s 3

Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976 (Cth), ss 3A, 14

Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967 (Cth), s 7

Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), ss 5, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 21A, 45A

International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 (Cth), ss 5, 5A, 6, 11

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, opened for signature on 14 December 1973, 1035 UNTS 167 (entered into force 22 February 1977)

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, done on 18 April 1961, 500 UNTS 95 (entered into force on 24 April 1964), Art 31
Cases cited:

Cabal v United Mexican States (No 3) [2000] FCA 1204; 186 ALR 188

City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5; 199 CLR 135

MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392; 238 FCR 158

O’Donoghue v Ireland [2008] HCA 14; 234 CLR 599

Pasini v United Mexican States [2002] HCA 3; 209 CLR 246

Re Attorney-General (Cth); Ex parte Skyring [1996] HCA 4; 135 ALR 29

Vasiljkovicv Commonwealth of Australia [2006] HCA 40; 227 CLR 614

Vasiljkovic v the Commonwealth [2006] HCA 40; 227 CLR 614
Date of hearing: 10 April 2018
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 115
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department
Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms K O’Gorman
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent submits to any order the Court may make save as to costs

ORDERS

VID 1415 of 2017
BETWEEN:

JAMES CHRISTOPHER CASTLE

Applicant
AND:

UNITED STATES

First Respondent

JUDGE RIETHMULLER

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MORTIMER J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 JUNE 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s objection to the jurisdiction of the second respondent to conduct proceedings under s 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of the applicant is dismissed.

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1.This Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine, pursuant to s 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), the applicant’s application for review of the orders made by the second respondent pursuant to s 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) on 8 December 2017.

THE COURT DIRECTS:

1.The matter be listed for hearing of the application for review under…

Continue reading Castle v United States

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Castle v United States [2018] FCA 931
Case
[2018] FCA 931
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Castle v United States, the applicant, Mr Castle, sought to challenge the extradition process under the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) on the basis of an alleged immunity from the Act. Mr Castle argued that his connection to an international organisation entitled him to immunity, which would prevent the Court from having jurisdiction over his extradition case. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Castle's claim of immunity could be substantiated, thereby rendering the Court's jurisdiction over his extradition case invalid. This involved assessing the legitimacy of Mr Castle's assertions and determining whether they provided a valid basis for immunity under Australian law. The Court had to decide if there was sufficient evidence to support Mr Castle's claims and, consequently, whether it had the jurisdiction to proceed with the extradition matter.

The Court found that the documents presented by Mr Castle lacked credibility and did not establish a legitimate basis for immunity. The assertions in these documents did not align with any recognised claims of immunity under the Extradition Act or Australian law. Consequently, the Court dismissed Mr Castle's objection to its jurisdiction. The Court also declared that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicant’s application for review of the orders made by the second respondent.

The Court ordered that Mr Castle's objection to the jurisdiction of the second respondent was dismissed and that the matter be listed for hearing of the application for review under section 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) on a date to be fixed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s objection to the jurisdiction of the second respondent to conduct proceedings under s 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of the applicant is dismissed.

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1. This Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine, pursuant to s 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), the applicant’s application for review of the orders made by the second respondent pursuant to s 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) on 8 December 2017.

THE COURT DIRECTS:

1. The matter be listed for hearing of the application for review under s 21 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) on a date to be fixed.

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

The documents put forward by Mr Castle have more than an air of unreality about them. As I have already noted, there may be a number of explanations for this. Whatever the correct explanation, there is nothing to connect any assertions in these documents with any legitimate claim to immunity from the processes under the Extradition Act which could be countenanced by this Court, or recognised under Australian law.CONCLUSION Mr Castle has not proven his claim that this Court has no jurisdiction over him, and that he is immune from the extradition process. On the evidence before the Court, his claim has no foundation in fact or in law and should be dismissed. For clarity, it is appropriate to make a declaration about this Court’s jurisdiction, since it has been challenged. The Court will proceed to determine the substantive aspects of the s 21 review, either on the papers or by a hearing, depending on the submissions made by the parties and the Court’s view of those submissions.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.