Robert Trimbole v John Dugan SM - [1984] FCA 367

Re: ROBERT TRIMBOLE
And: JOHN DUGAN S.M. and THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF
AUSTRALIA
No. VG 285/1984
Administrative Law
3 FCR 324 / 57 ALR 75

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Woodward J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative law - extradition - taking by magistrate of evidence required to secure extradition of fugitive to Australia - nature of proceedings - whether cross-examination can or should be permitted - whether magistrate an "officer of the Commonwealth" for this purpose.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 s.16

Judiciary Act 1903 s.39B

Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 ss.27 and 27A, Form 9

Administrative Law - Extradition - Taking by magistrate of evidence required to secure extradition - Nature of proceedings - Whether cross-examination can or should be permitted - Whether magistrate an officer of the Commonwealth - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s. 16 - Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s. 39B - Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth), ss 27, 27A, Form 9.

HEADNOTE

In taking evidence pursuant to s. 27A of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth) a magistrate is performing a purely ministerial function and would be exceeding his jurisdiction if he allowed cross-examination of witnesses.

A State magistrate taking evidence pursuant to s. 27A is not an "officer of the Commonwealth" within the meaning of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s. 39B.

HEARING

Melbourne, 1984, November 2. #DATE 2:11:1984

APPLICATION

Application for an order of review pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and for injunctions pursuant to s. 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903.

A.G. Uren Q.C. and D.F. Hore-Lacy, for the applicant.

J.L. Sher Q.C. and M. Rozenes, for the first respondent.

R. Redlich and W.B. Woinarski, for the second respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

Solicitors for the applicant: Coates & Rozencwaja.

Solicitor for the respondent: Australian Government Solicitor.

G.F.V.

ORDER

1. The application for an order to review and the notice of motion for an injunction be dismissed with costs.

2. The interim injunction previously granted be dissolved.

Application dismissed with costs. Interim injunction dissolved.

JUDGE1

There are two matters before the court. The first is an application for an order to review pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The second is a notice of motion for an injunction pursuant to section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903. In its original form that notice of motion also sought a writ of prohibition, but that claim has been abandoned in the course of argument.

Each of these proceedings was commenced today, was by consent made returnable today and is to be finally disposed of at this hearing. The relief which is sought takes the form of injunctions to prevent Mr Dugan, Stipendiary Magistrate, from certifying, or transmitting to the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth, evidence taken pursuant to section 27A of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966, without first giving counsel for the person concerned, Mr Robert Trimbole, the right to recall and cross-examine witnesses who…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Robert Trimbole v John Dugan SM

Details

AGLC: Robert Trimbole v John Dugan SM & anor [1984] FCA 367 (3 FCR 324; 57 ALR 75)
Case: [1984] FCA 367
Decision Date: 02 NOVEMBER 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Robert Trimbole versus John Dugan, the dispute arose from a request by Trimbole for an order to review and a notice of motion for an injunction against Dugan. Trimbole sought to challenge the magistrate's decision to allow evidence to be taken that would facilitate his extradition to Australia. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was tasked with determining whether cross-examination could or should be permitted in such proceedings and whether the magistrate was considered an "officer of the Commonwealth" for the purpose of this decision. The fundamental issue was whether the magistrate, in taking evidence required to secure extradition, had acted outside the scope of their authority.

The court found that the magistrate was indeed an officer of the Commonwealth and had the authority to take evidence for the purpose of extradition. The court reasoned that the magistrate's role in this context was procedural and administrative rather than judicial, and therefore, the scope of their authority was not limited in the way Trimbole suggested. Furthermore, the court determined that cross-examination was not necessary in these proceedings, as the primary objective was to gather evidence to support extradition, not to conduct a full adversarial hearing.

As a result, the application for an order to review and the notice of motion for an injunction were dismissed with costs. The interim injunction previously granted was also dissolved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an order to review and the notice of motion for an injunction be dismissed with costs.

2. The interim injunction previously granted be dissolved.

Application dismissed with costs. Interim injunction dissolved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.