McDade v United Kingdom & Anor

McDade v United Kingdom & Anor concerned an application for leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, McDade, sought to appeal against a decision of the Full Federal Court which had dismissed his application for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus application sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in Australia, which was purportedly based on an extradition request from the United Kingdom.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Full Federal Court had erred in law in dismissing McDade's application for a writ of habeas corpus. This required the High Court to consider the scope of the writ of habeas corpus in the context of international extradition proceedings and the extent to which Australian courts could review the legality of detention when an extradition request was being processed under the *Extradition Act 1988* (Cth).

Kirby and Callinan JJ, in their joint judgment, affirmed the principles governing the writ of habeas corpus in extradition matters. They held that the writ is not a mechanism to review the merits of the extradition request itself, nor to re-examine evidence that would be considered by the executive government in deciding whether to surrender the individual. Instead, the writ is primarily concerned with whether the detention is authorised by law. In this instance, their Honours found that the detention was authorised by the *Extradition Act 1988* (Cth) and the relevant warrants, and that the Full Federal Court had correctly applied the law in dismissing the application.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.