Pasini v United Mexican States

The High Court of Australia considered an application for special leave to appeal by Marco Pasini Bertran against a judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The Federal Court had dismissed an appeal against orders confirming a magistrate's decision that the applicant was eligible for surrender to the United Mexican States under the *Extradition Act 1988* (Cth). The applicant, a Mexican national, was sought by Mexico on charges of wilfully assisting another individual to commit crimes and of concealment.

The legal issues before the High Court concerned the constitutional validity of provisions within the *Extradition Act* that limited the Federal Court's review of a magistrate's extradition order. Specifically, the court had to determine whether a provision requiring the Federal Court to consider only the material before the magistrate, and not to receive further evidence, denied the Federal Court the power to prevent an abuse of its process and was therefore inconsistent with the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The applicant also contended that such a provision amounted to a purported conferral of non-judicial power on the Federal Court by enabling it to participate in an administrative function.

The High Court, in dismissing the application for special leave to appeal, affirmed the reasoning of the Federal Court. The courts below had held that the limitation on the evidence receivable by the Federal Court did not invalidate the statutory review process. It was reasoned that the Parliament may prescribe rules of evidence and procedure for federal courts, and that confining a review to the material before a prior decision-maker does not necessarily undermine the judicial nature of the review. The Federal Court's role was characterised as the exercise of judicial power, not an impermissible administrative function, as it involved a final and binding determination of the issue of eligibility for surrender.

The application for special leave to appeal was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent.