Robert Leslie Riley v Clyde Evans

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1 1

NEW	SOUTH	WALES	mGISTRY	1	N.S.N. No. G 218 of 1983
1

DIVISION

GENERAL

BETWEEN

ROBERT LESLIE RILEY

Appllcant

AND

CLYDE

EVANS

OTHERS

Respondents

Elorllng J.

12 August 1983 -

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

I am informed that Mr Butler, who

1 s a co-accused

of Mr Riley, 1 s about to file proceedings

of a similar

nature m this court. If that is the case, then it would be very advantageous if those proceedmgs are listed for

dlrectlons in this court on Friday,

19 August, whlch

1 s

the date to whlch	I propose to stand over	Mr Riley's
applicatlon.

The appllcatlon

1s to review the declslon

of the

thlrd respondent, the stipendlary magistrate who heard

extraGltlon proceedings against

Mr Riley and who apparently

made an order that he be extradlted to the United States	of
Amerlca.

I gather that Mr Rlley

is in custody awaiting

extradition.

I have been Informed that the proceedings in

this court will take from three to five days.

It 1 s not

presently clear to me what the real lssues In the matter

are and as

I have already sald,

I commend to counsel the

desirability of deflnlng the issues to be litigated.

I was informed by Mr Nell, who appears for the

applicant, that the applicant has commenced habeas corpus

proceedings in the Supreme Court

of New South Wales.

Neil said these proceedings had been taken

for more

abundant caution unless it be held that such proceedings

would :,e out of tlme If not commenced untll after the

conclusion of the proceedings in thls court. Mr Ne11

has said that his client will not pursue the habeas

corpus proceedings untll the determination

of the proceedings

ln thls court.

Mr Hllizon has sought that this court should

determlne, as a preliminary matter, whether in the

exerclse of Its

discretion under the Administratlve

Declsions (Judicial Revlew) Act it should refuse relief

If the habeas corpus

proceedmgs are pending.

I do not

think I should accede to thls applicatlon.

It will, of

course, be a matter for the judge hearing the application

to decide whether, assumlng the applicant otherwise

demonstrates a clalm for relief, such relief should be

refused on discretionary grounds.

3 .

I appreciate that the proceedings are urgent and

indeed, both sldes have lolned in asklnq that the matter

be glven the earliest posslble date for hearing.

I am

not prepared to fix a date for hearlnq today because,

through no fault of then own, the partles have not been

able to glve me an assurance as to when the transcript

will be available from the maglstrate's court.

I propose to stand the matter over for one week.

If I am then glven a reasonable assurance that the matter

is ready to proceed

or can be ready to proceed in a short

time, I shall then fix a date for the hearlnq.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robert Leslie Riley v Clyde Evans was heard in the Federal Court of Australia in New South Wales. The applicant, Robert Leslie Riley, sought to review the decision of the third respondent, a stipendiary magistrate, who ordered his extradition to the United States. Riley, who was in custody awaiting extradition, had commenced habeas corpus proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which he intended to suspend pending the outcome of the judicial review proceedings. The court was also informed that a co-accused of Riley, Mr Butler, was about to file similar proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the court should exercise its discretion to refuse relief in light of the pending habeas corpus proceedings, and whether the matter should be given an urgent hearing date. Counsel for the applicant requested that the matter be heard on the same date as Mr Butler's proceedings, which was proposed to be 19 August. The court noted that the issues in the matter were not yet clear, and encouraged counsel to define the issues to be litigated.

The court declined to determine as a preliminary matter whether it should refuse relief if the habeas corpus proceedings were pending. It was held that it would be a matter for the judge hearing the application to decide whether relief should be refused on discretionary grounds, assuming the applicant otherwise demonstrated a claim for relief. The court also decided not to fix a hearing date at that time, as the parties had not been able to provide an assurance as to when the transcript from the magistrate's court would be available. The matter was stood over for one week, with the court proposing to fix a hearing date if given a reasonable assurance that the matter was ready to proceed or could be ready in a short time.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established