The specialty rule in s 42(a)(i) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) is satisfied where the conduct alleged in the extradition material, including false representations inducing investors to part with funds, encompasses the conduct charged on the indictment even where the charges are formulated under a different section. For tendency evidence in fraud cases involving multiple victims, where the representations pleaded are broadly similar rather than precisely worded, the evidence of one set of victims is capable of having significant probative value on other counts. The decision in Jacara v Perpetual Trustees is distinguishable where the facts in issue are defined by broadly pleaded representations rather than precise words or figures.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.