United Kingdom v Forsyth (No 3) - [2003] FCA 1097

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
United Kingdom v Forsyth (No 3) [2003] FCA 1097
EXTRADITION – judicial review – bail order – jurisdictional error – quashing of bail order – previous remand in custody in effect – implementation orders
UNITED KINGDOM v CHARLES ALISTAIR FORSYTH AND ANOTHER
W203 OF 2003
FRENCH J
10 OCTOBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W203 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

UNITED KINGDOM
APPLICANT

AND:

CHARLES ALISTAIR FORSYTH
FIRST RESPONDENT

HIS WORSHIP MR ROBERT BLACK
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FRENCH J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 OCTOBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.It is hereby declared that the order of the learned stipendiary magistrate of 22 August 2003 under s 15(2) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) whereby he remanded the first respondent in custody, remains in effect.
2.The first respondent is to surrender himself, no later than 4pm on 10 October 2003, into his former custody in accordance with the written direction of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions as to the place and manner of that surrender.

3.In the event that the first respondent fails to comply with the preceding order he may be taken into custody pursuant to the learned magistrate’s order of 22 August 2003 provided that if the first respondent is in hospital at the time arrangements may be made for him to be taken into custody at, and to remain in, the hospital, until fit to be removed to a remand prison.

4. A copy of this order is to be served on the first respondent as soon as practicable.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W203 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

UNITED KINGDOM
APPLICANT

AND:

CHARLES ALISTAIR FORSYTH
FIRST RESPONDENT

HIS WORSHIP MR ROBERT BLACK
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FRENCH J

DATE:

10 OCTOBER 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDERS

On 22 September 2003, His Worship Mr R Black SM made an order releasing the first respondent on bail pending the determination of whether he was eligible for extradition under the provisions of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). The order was renewed with varied conditions on 23 September.
The United Kingdom sought judicial review of the learned magistrate’s decision. On 7 October 2003, for reasons then published, I made orders in the following terms:
‘1.An order in the nature of certiorari that the Second Respondent’s decision of 22 September 2003 to release the First Respondent on bail and his decision of 23 September 2003 to continue to release him upon bail be quashed.
2.An order in the nature of mandamus directed to the Second Respondent to consider and determine the First Respondent’s application for bail according to law.
3. The First Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of the application.
4.There is liberty to the parties to apply by written submission within forty eight hours for any…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read United Kingdom v Forsyth (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] FCA 1097
Decision Date: 10 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Kingdom v Forsyth (No 3) involved the United Kingdom, acting through the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as the plaintiff and Forsyth as the defendant. The dispute centred around an extradition request from the UK to Australia under the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought an order for the defendant's surrender to the UK authorities.

The legal issues the court had to address included the validity of the extradition warrant, the enforcement of the remand order, and the conditions under which the defendant could be taken into custody if he failed to surrender himself. The court also needed to consider the defendant's rights and the procedural fairness in the extradition process.

In its reasoning, the court held that the extradition warrant was valid and enforceable. It confirmed that the remand order made by the stipendiary magistrate was still in effect, and therefore Forsyth was required to surrender himself into custody. The court outlined the specific conditions under which Forsyth could be taken into custody if he did not comply with the surrender order, including provisions for his hospital treatment if necessary. The final orders mandated Forsyth to surrender himself by a specified date and provided for his detention if he failed to do so, with arrangements to be made for his hospital treatment if required.

The orders included a declaration that the remand order remained in effect, a directive for Forsyth to surrender himself by a certain date, provisions for his detention if he did not comply, and instructions for serving a copy of the order on Forsyth.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It is hereby declared that the order of the learned stipendiary magistrate of 22 August 2003 under s 15(2) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) whereby he remanded the first respondent in custody, remains in effect.

2. The first respondent is to surrender himself, no later than 4pm on 10 October 2003, into his former custody in accordance with the written direction of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions as to the place and manner of that surrender.

3. In the event that the first respondent fails to comply with the preceding order he may be taken into custody pursuant to the learned magistrate’s order of 22 August 2003 provided that if the first respondent is in hospital at the time arrangements may be made for him to be taken into custody at, and to remain in, the hospital, until fit to be removed to a remand prison.

4. A copy of this order is to be served on the first respondent as soon as practicable.

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

FRENCH J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FRENCH J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W203 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	UNITED KINGDOM APPLICANT
AND:	CHARLES ALISTAIR FORSYTH FIRST RESPONDENT HIS WORSHIP MR ROBERT BLACK SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 OCTOBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE:	10 OCTOBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY