Trimbole v The Commonwealth - [1984] HCA 83

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs C.J., Mason, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ.

TRIMBOLE v. THE COMMONWEALTH

(1984) 155 CLR 186

6 December 1984

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Extradition—Statutes

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Extradition of fugitive offender to Australia from abroad—Reciprocity—Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth), s. 10(4)—Extradition (Republic of Ireland) Regulations, regs. 3,4. Extradition—Fugitive offender—Request to Republic of Ireland—Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth), s. 10(4)—Of what and at what time Governor-General required to be satisfied when making regulation under that Act. Statutes—Subordinate legislation—Regulations required to be laid before each House of Parliament within fifteen days of making—Dissolution of House of Representatives—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 28—Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s. 48(1)(c), (3).

Decision

December 6.
THE COURT delivered the following judgment:-
This matter is one of some urgency and we must therefore give judgment immediately. The plaintiff, Robert Trimbole, is an Australian citizen presently residing in the Republic of Ireland. Warrants have been issued in Australia for his arrest on a number of very serious charges. On 26 October 1984, the Australian Embassy requested the Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland that Trimbole be provisionally arrested and advised that it intended to make a formal request for his extradition to Australia. A requisition or request was made on 4 November 1984. Trimbole was arrested and legal proceedings in connexion with the matter are pending in Ireland. Trimbole has commenced the present proceedings in this Court against the Commonwealth and the Attorney-General claiming declaratory relief and an order restraining the defendants from proceeding further on the request and has issued a summons seeking that relief. The defendants have moved to strike out the statement of claim. (at p188)

2. The request for the surrender of Trimbole is made under the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth), as amended ("the Act"). There is no extradition treaty between Ireland and Australia. Therefore, authority to make the request for the surrender of Trimbole has to be found in s. 10(4) of the Act and in regulations made under that section. Section 10(4) provides as follows:

"Where the Governor-General is satisfied that, if this Act applied in relation to a foreign state, the law of that foreign state would, with or without any limitations, conditions, exceptions or qualifications, permit the surrender to Australia of persons accused or convicted of extraditable crimes within the meaning of Part IV who are found in that foreign state, or within the jurisdiction of, or of a part of, that foreign state, the regulations may provide that this Act applies in relation to that foreign state or that this Act applies in relation to that foreign state subject to limitations, conditions, exceptions or qualifications specified in the regulations." (at p189)

3. On 26 October 1984, the Governor-General made the Extradition (Republic of Ireland) Regulations. By reg. 3 of those regulations, the Act is applied to the Republic of Ireland subject to the limitations, conditions, exceptions or qualifications specified in reg. 4. The provisions of reg. 4…

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 Trimbole v The Commonwealth

Details

AGLC: Trimbole v The Commonwealth [1984] HCA 83
Case: [1984] HCA 83
Decision Date: 6 December 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr. Trimbole against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned the validity of a search warrant issued under the *Crimes (Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act 1971* (Cth) and the subsequent seizure of certain documents. Mr. Trimbole contended that the warrant was invalid and that the evidence obtained through its execution should have been excluded.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the information laid before the justice of the peace, which led to the issuance of the search warrant, was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 10 of the *Crimes (Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act 1971* (Cth). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the informant had reasonable grounds to believe that the premises to be searched contained evidence relating to offences under the Act, and if this belief was properly conveyed to the justice.

The Court reasoned that the information laid must disclose reasonable grounds for the belief required by the statute. It was not sufficient for the informant to merely state that they held such a belief; the information must contain sufficient particulars to enable the justice to form their own independent judgment that reasonable grounds existed. In this instance, the Court found that the information laid before the justice lacked the necessary specificity to establish reasonable grounds for the belief that the premises contained evidence of offences under the Act. Consequently, the search warrant was deemed invalid.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered that the evidence obtained under the invalid warrant be excluded.

Orders