The fight for Dan Duggan - Part 2: The extradition battle

This is part two of a two part episode. If you haven't already, go back and take a listen to our first episode.

Free Dan Duggle, Free Dan Duggy.

For years, Dan Duggan's case has turned on one question after another, what happened in South Africa, what he knew, and whether, as an Australian citizen, the United States has the right to prosecute him at all. But by the time his case reached the Federal court this year, the fight was about something more immediate, whether Australia would let him go.

Our government should make it clear that being an Australian citizen matters, and then when another country comes for you, they'll protect you as best they can, and they'll protect your family, they'll protect.

Your asc it.

I'm Nicole Johnston and you're listening to seven AM Today journalist Michael Sainsbury and saffaring Duggan on why they believe the Australian government really Approvedan's extradition and how his supporters came to see the case as part of a wider struggle between the United States and China. It's Monday, April twenty seven. Michael, Could you take us inside this recent extradition hearing what happened in court, So the.

Recent extradition hearing was challenge to the extradition that Mark dreyfus had signed off for a year earlier. As you know, things take a while.

It's court an Australian man who served as a US fighter pilot. He's set to face court in the US after his extradition was approved by Federal Attorney General Mark Dreyfusi.

Chans Lori has argued that the offenses that he was charged with were not offenses in Australia at the time that the allegations were made.

The main tank of his case that's just been decided on really focuses around the idea that in order to be extradited, the offense for which of which you're accused needs to be an offense in Australia and in the United States Dan is accused of.

Australia did not have explicit comparable laws about training foreign militaries until twenty eighteen, and then we updated that again in twenty twenty one to make it even more explicit. But that's six years after the case.

Dan was arrested in twenty twenty two, and at which time it was then possible to say that the historic activities were now an offense in Australia. So Dan really would have had to be a clairvoyant at the time that he was giving this training to know that in the future it was going to render him subject to extradition.

Regardless of all of that, though the Federal Court rejected the argument why did they do that?

Are?

They rejected on a very literal approach and I think you often find with the single judge on the Federal Court that they will do that. And the difficulty with international law is quite often treaties overlay treaties which overlay underlying local legislation self a little bit kind of complicated, and you end up going to kind of the black litter.

Of the law.

The hearing was all over in a matter of minutes. The judge essentially threw out the family's application, which was based on legal arguments relating to the extradition. The judge also ordered that the dug and family paid legal costs, and that is a huge blow in itself.

So if Dan Duggan is said to the US, what would he face? What could happen there?

If he goes to the US. The way the charges have been stacked up, there's a maximum of sixty five years each of these counts. I think there's three of them carry a sentence up to twenty years each. Other people have said, you know, why doesn't he just go in and fight the charges there?

Would he?

He's an Australian citizen. He should prosecute every option under the Australian legal systems available to him before he goes and puts himself in the hands of a foreign legal system. That why we're sending somebody off to face a legal system in the US. It's falling apart.

Do you think there's any similarities with this case and Julian Assange.

There are obviously similarities because they're Australian citizens who the US is trying to get their hands on. It's interesting with Julian sign the US sent a whole team of lawyers over to England and to wherever he ended up getting led off, some small island in the Pacific. But for Dan's case, the US have got the Australian taxpayer through the Attorney General's Department to prosecute the US's case.

The court case is one part of this, but in the end it is the Australian government who decides whether dug It will be extradited. So why have they chosen to do it? And what are they saying about it publicly?

They're not saying anything publics that have been very, very very it's all been very process driven. It's been driven very much by the Attorney General's Department.

Could I ask what, what, if any role your department has had in the extradition proceedings and incarceration of Daniel Togm.

So the department's responsible for the Extradition Act and handling of the United States extradition requests.

When your department receives an extradition request, do you do a due diligence to determine whether or not the offense which founds the extradition requests has a comparable offense under Australian law? Is that part of a due diligence process when you receive an extradition request.

I'll get Musimberg to speak about this matter. But there was a provisional arrest request in the first instance, and we do consider dual criminality. Ultimately that is a matter that is considered by a magistrate, and it is before a magistrate.

Yeah, we're very close to the US. I think that there's a feeling that we don't want to upset them and this is just, in their eyes, just a little case that it's not worth poking their neck up for.

And we have raised the case of mistress change at all levels of government, and we've used all of our diplomatic efforts at every level.

In the end, Albanez, you did apply diplomatic pressure in the Assantaige case, but you know that was a very big, loud public case. This isn't so much and doesn't seem like they feel like wasting any political capital to look after an Australian citizen, which is I think is a bit of a distress. At any point, the Attorney General can get rid of this, They can just say no. The side of the we're not going to extradide.

Coming up is a geopolitical contest between the US and China. What's really driving this case. Michael Duggan and his supporters say that this is much bigger than one man that's caught in a geopolitical battle over China.

He's being used as a pawn in an ideologic war between the United States and China, and the Australian government agencies have allowed this to happen as willing participants.

Would you agree with that or how seriously should we take a claim like that?

Look, I think that's true. Is certainly in the initial writing of the indictment. That was certainly a time when the US, particularly but other people in the West were starting to get worried about much more worried about China politically.

Turned now to the case of two Chinese American scientists accused of espionage. Last year, the United States federal agents arrested Shi Shao Seng, the chairman of Temple University's physics Department.

They knew that there was a lot of former military people out there doing things that they didn't necessarily want them to do. So there was a concerted effort by the US and eventually the UK and in Australia to try and wind all this back and pull it. In Dan's case, it had already started. The process as started, and there's no reason for the US to halt the process. But there's a big reason for US to halt the process because if this can happen to Dan, it can

So, Michael, what is the next stage of this case, what happens next? And what is really at stake here? What's the big picture?

A man's life is at stake. That's surely that should be enough. But in terms of what happens next, the extradition has now been improved again by the court, but there's an automatic right to an appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court within twenty eight days. So Dan's lawyers are obviously giving every consideration to that. Beyond that is the possibility of an appeal to the High Court. Those are the things that are being thought about at

Suffering? How long will you and Dan keep fighting it?

We will continue to pursue every avenue available. This is a family that we are. I'm going to keep together and we will keep going on. It will not break us, and we will continue down every avenue we possibly can. But it's devastating having to tell the children that your father's not coming home. At the moment, majority of adults can't understand what's going on, so how can you explain it to a child. We are a type family. We

What is the message that you have to the Australian government. What would you say to them about Dan and about how they're handling the case.

I'm so disappointed in our government. I feel like I'd get no answers. It's been going on long enough. It is at the bequest of another country, and.

I feel like.

No one's trying to help us. They just want it all to go away. No one's trying to help. I hardly get any responses back. It takes months and months to get a response back from our government or Attorney General if any. I think the message that I get from them is that they can't do anything, and that is incorrect. The Attorney General and the Prime Minister can overturn this at any moment, so to give the message

That's hard.

It's hard not knowing where you're going to be in the next day, where you're going to be in the next week, where you're going to be in the next month. Living Groundhog Day is hard.

It's the uncertainty, yeah, and that's what breaks everyone, the uncertainty suffering. Thank you so much for speaking with us.

Thank you.

Also in the news, world leaders including Anthony Albanesi have condemned an act of political violence after the White House correspondence dinner was interrupted by gunfire. The president evacuated as guests hit under tables. Police say the suspected gunman charged through a Secret Service checkpoint armed with multiple guns and knives. One officer was shot but was saved by his bulletproofest.