Matson (Baron) v Keenan

[2016] FCA 1550

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Matson (Baron) v Keenan [2016] FCA 1550

File number:

QUD 569 of 2016

Judge:

RANGIAH J

Date of judgment:

16 December 2016

Catchwords:

EXTRADITION – application for bail – no special circumstances – bail refused

Legislation:

Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) ss 12, 15, 16, 19, 21 and 22

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 23

Federal Court Rules2011 (Cth) r 4.12

Cases cited:

Matson v United States of America [2016] FCA 1245

Republic of Polandv Ginter [2009] FCA 262

United Mexican States v Cabal (2001) 209 CLR 165

Date of hearing:

16 December 2016

Registry:

Queensland

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

22

Counsel for the Applicant:

The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the First and Third Respondents:

Mr M McKechnie

Solicitor for the First and Third Respondents:

Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

The Second Respondent did not appear

ORDERS

QUD 569 of 2016

BETWEEN:

BARON PHILLIP MATSON

Applicant

AND:

HON MICHAEL KEENAN MP MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

First Respondent

MAGISTRATE MORRISON ACT MAGISTRATES COURT

Second Respondent

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Third Respondent

JUDGE:	RANGIAH J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 DECEMBER 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application for bail is dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first and third respondents’ costs of the application for bail.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RANGIAH J:

1. The applicant applies for bail pending the determination of his application for judicial review of decisions made by the first and second respondents pursuant to ss 16 and 12 respectively of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”).

2. On 21 May 2014, the third respondent requested the extradition of the applicant from Australia to the United States of America. On 4 September 2015, the first respondent signed a notice of receipt pursuant to s 16(1) of the Act stating that the extradition request had been received. On 17 September 2015, the second respondent issued an extradition arrest warrant under s 12(1) of the Act.

3. The applicant was brought before a magistrate on 26 October 2015 and remanded in custody under s 15(2) of the Act. He has remained in custody since that time.

4. On 15 January 2016, a magistrate determined that the applicant was eligible for surrender to the third respondent. His Honour ordered, pursuant to s 19(9) of the Act, that the applicant be committed to prison to await surrender or release. The applicant then applied to this Court for review of the Magistrate’s orders.

5. On 26 July 2016, the applicant filed his application for review of the first and second respondents’ decisions under ss 16 and 12 of the Act.

6. On 21 October 2016, I ordered that the applicant’s application for review of the Magistrate’s decision under s 21(1) of the Act be dismissed: Matson v United States of America [2016] FCA 1245. The…