United States of America v Griffiths

In the case of United States of America v Griffiths, the respondent was facing extradition to the United States on charges of copyright infringement and conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. The case was heard by the Magistrate who had to determine whether the respondent was eligible for surrender under the Extradition Act 1988. The primary ground of opposition to the extradition was based on the double criminality test in section 19(2)(c) of the Act, which requires that the conduct of the respondent must be a criminal offence in both Australia and the United States.

The court had to decide whether the statutory test for double criminality could be applied to the respondent's conduct, which occurred entirely within Australia, but with consequences in the United States. The Magistrate found it conceptually challenging to apply the statutory test in this scenario, as the respondent's conduct did not physically take place in the United States, and the consequences of the offence occurred outside of Australia. The Magistrate noted that the Magistrate's own research had not found a case with even broad similarity to the circumstances of the present case.

After considering the arguments presented by counsel for the United States, the Magistrate concluded that the respondent was eligible for surrender. The court held that the double criminality test could still be applied, even though the respondent's conduct occurred entirely within Australia, as the consequences of the offence had occurred in the United States. The Magistrate was satisfied that the supporting documents which were put before him included a duly authenticated statement in writing setting out the conduct constituting the offences in accordance with s 19(3)(c)(ii) of the Act.

The court ordered the respondent's release, in accordance with section 22(5) of the Act, as the Attorney-General had determined that the respondent was not to be surrendered to the extradition country in relation to any qualifying extradition offence. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each extradition case and the need for careful application of the statutory test for double criminality.