Haddad, J.A.K v Larcombe, H. and Ors

The applicant, a resident of Australia, sought review of a decision made by the first respondent under section 22 of the Extradition Act 1988 to commit him to prison to await surrender to the Federal Republic of Germany. The decision was based on an extradition request from Germany for the applicant to serve a sentence of imprisonment of one year and six months imposed by a German court in April 1983. The applicant had been granted a two-year probation period in December 1983, which was revoked in May 1986, and he was then in Australia. The applicant argued that he had already undergone punishment provided by the law of West Germany and therefore should not be extradited. The magistrate rejected the application for review, and the applicant appealed to the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the documents tendered to the magistrate, which were not authenticated by a certificate in English or translated into English, were admissible. The applicant argued that the documents should be admissible as they were in a language understood by the parties. The respondents contended that the documents should not be admitted because they did not comply with the requirements of the Extradition Act. The court held that the documents were admissible as they were in a language understood by the parties and the applicant had not objected to their use. The court also held that the applicant had already undergone punishment provided by the law of West Germany and therefore should not be extradited.

The court found that the applicant had already undergone punishment provided by the law of West Germany and therefore should not be extradited. The court held that the documents tendered to the magistrate were admissible as they were in a language understood by the parties and the applicant had not objected to their use. The court quashed the decision of the first respondent to commit the applicant to prison and directed a magistrate of a Local Court to order the release of the applicant under section 19(9) of the Extradition Act. The second and third respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding.

The court allowed the applicant's appeal and quashed the decision of the first respondent to commit him to prison. The court directed a magistrate of a Local Court to order the release of the applicant under section 19(9) of the Extradition Act. The second and third respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding, including the costs incurred by him in relation to his application for bail on 11 May 1989.