About Dan Duggan
Dan Duggan is an Australian citizen, husband, and father of six Australian children. Originally from Boston, he moved to Australia in 2002 after 12 years of honourable service as a US Marine fighter pilot. He built an aviation business here, operating and training pilots in ex-military aircraft under Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs), and with approval from Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
After nearly a decade living in Australia, with Australian children born and his new life blossoming, he ultimately made the long-term commitment to Australia by becoming a sole Australian citizen. Following Australian Government guidelines, he relinquished his US citizenship in the process. With no offense meant to anyone, and for the benefit of his family, Dan Duggan chose Australia on a pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
In support of his family, Duggan worked part-time in South Africa as an instructor at the Test Flight Academy of South Africa (TFASA). It is for this legal work in 2012 that he now finds himself the subject of a United States extradition request; work that he used his CASA issued Australian instructor license to do.
He has been imprisoned and fighting extradition in Australia since October 2022.
What is actually alleged?
The US claims Duggan breached its domestic arms control law (ITAR) by providing “defence services” without approval. It also alleges “money laundering” simply because he was paid for the otherwise legal work – income he fully declared to the ATO.
Strip away the language, and the facts are straightforward:
- He was a full-time, tax-paying resident of Australia during the alleged time frame.
- He legally trained civilian pilots.
- No weapons (“arms”), tactics, or classified material were involved (this is not even alleged).
- The aircraft used were 1960’s era ex-miliary civilianised aircraft with no combat capability.
- The knowledge taught was non-classified and widely available.
- The same type of training is legal and regulated in Australia.
This is not a “defence service”. It’s lawful aviation training.
Lawful in Australia:
The conduct in question falls within Australia’s established aviation framework, including CASR Part 32, which governs the civilian use of ex-military aircraft for private and commercial use, including pilot training.
That is critical: The activity Duggan is accused of is not a crime in Australia.
- It was lawful at the time.
- It remains lawful today.
Other Australians involved with TFASA activities at the same time as Dan have faced no charges.
A Process That Prevents the Truth:
Australia’s Extradition Act 1988 operates as a “no evidence scheme”. That means the US does not need to provide evidence for its allegations, nor can Duggan properly challenge them in any Australian Court.
A key example is the US jurisdictional claim of citizenship.
The US asserts jurisdiction on Dan by claiming he was still a US citizen at the time of the alleged activity. That is provably untrue. Dan holds a US Govt. issued Certificate of Loss of Nationality confirming he ceased being a US citizen on 26 January 2012 – before the alleged conduct.
This evidence was not admitted in Court.
So, the central issue of whether the United States has jurisdiction at all has never been properly tested.
No “Dual Criminality”
Extradition law requires “dual criminality”; whereby the alleged conduct must be a crime in both countries.
That safeguard is meant to protect Australians from being surrendered for conduct this country does not consider criminal. Here, it has broken down.
- Duggan was an Australian full-time resident and taxpayer since 2002.
- His alleged conduct complied with Australian law.
- The alleged activity is not an offense in Australia.
- The same conduct could have lawfully occurred in Australia, as it could today.
Yet extradition is proceeding.
As Justice Deane stated in Riley (1985), dual criminality exists to prevent surrender for conduct “not deserving of punishment at all” under Australian standards. That is exactly the situation here.
The Use of New ‘Retrospective’ Law for Otherwise Previous Legal Activity – The Critical Issue:
The only way this extradition has been made to fit is through a retrospective approach.
A law introduced in 2018, National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018 six years after the alleged conduct, is being relied on in a never before used legal technicality to satisfy the otherwise missing dual criminality for an activity in 2012 that Australia considered to have been entirely legal.
The 2018 law could never be used to prosecute Dan in Australia because: (1) the activity was lawful, and (2) the law has no retrospective effect.
This creates a serious legal problem:
- It imposes “new legal consequences” after the fact (ex post facto).
- It conflicts with High Court authority (Polyuckovich 1991).
- It undermines the long-standing prohibition on retrospective criminal liability.
Even the United States Constitution forbids such “ex post facto” law. Yet Australia is effectively enabling it on behalf of the US; something that would be prohibited in a reciprocal circumstance, exposing one of many inconsistencies and conflicts of the matter – disregard to the AUS-US Extradition Treaty that is stated to be ‘reciprocal’.
Human Cost:
Duggan has now spent over 3.5 years incarcerated (since 21 October 2022):
- Continuously held in arduous maximum-security conditions.
- Approximately 19 months in solitary confinement.
- Denied realistic access to bail or legal resources.
During this time:
- His mother passed away while he was in isolation.
- The sale of the Duggan’s property was frozen.
- He was denied legal aid – perversely ineligible because he faces no Australian charges.
Meanwhile, Australian tax-payers have funded the US legal process against him.
His family is under significant financial and emotional strain, surviving only on crippling loans and crowdfunding.
Australia Has a Choice:
Under ARTICLE V(1) of the AUS-US Extradition Treaty, neither country is bound to extradite its own nationals. The Treaty is adopted into the Extradition Act as law.
The Attorney-General has clear discretion to refuse extradition.
If extradition proceeds in these circumstances, it sets a dangerous precedent for all Australians into the future.
“It seems to us, undoubtedly, that this indictment was brought about at a time when the US administration was entering into a geopolitical contest with China, and was seeking to use the criminal law in furtherance of US foreign policy,” Dennis Miralis solicitor.
Dan was arrested so that the United States could make an extradition request to the Australian Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus. He had the power to free Dan.
This is a politically motivated case based on a 2017 indictment in the US, that was cobbled together and secretly filed away.
Dan is caught in a geo-political storm for working with Chinese people. He has been accused by the US of training Chinese military pilots in South Africa in 2012, when he was an Australian citizen.
His unfair treatment has resulted in formal complaints to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security launched an Inquiry into the matter, with full Royal Commission powers who highlighted: “I found that one activity of ASIO did transcend the bounds of propriety in one respect.” The actual report remains classified.
“The manner and circumstances behind this prosecution of Dan are something you would expect to find in an authoritarian country, but not in a democratic Australia where its citizens expect a more fair and balanced equal application of the law and the overriding principle of a ‘fair go’ for all.
“My children simply don’t understand what is happening to their loving father, and I firmly believe that Australians will not stand for outrageous interference by the United States in our country.
“Our large family is facing huge expenses, including legal bills, a living costs, and a campaign to raise awareness. I am struggling to put food on the table and pay the bills – but we will fight on, no matter what.”
A test pilot is a pilot who flies new or modified aircraft that may be still under development, such as new passenger planes or even jumbo jets. The purpose of the tests is to determine if the aircraft is safe, operates as expected and meets aircraft regulations. Since these planes may not yet be approved for regular use and may still need modifications, or may have undergone significant alterations since being in use, test pilots need to understand how to assess the performance of the craft, how to identify mechanical issues, and they take risks by flying these aircraft.[1]
“It takes a certain fearlessness to fly and evaluate experimental or newly-modified aircraft. The brave individuals who become test pilots do just that: they fly those aircraft and test new technologies.” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.[2]
Airlines such as Boeing hire test pilots to evaluate the performance of their aircraft. Test pilots play a vital role in ensuring that technologies and aircraft are safe for their passengers and pilots.
In the United States, the National Test Pilot School (NTPS) located in California, is the largest civilian training centre for test pilots in the world. The mission of NTPS is to educate and train aviation personnel so that “each graduate increases flight test competency, improves flight test and aviation safety, and enhances the aerospace profession worldwide.”
Many test pilot trainers come out of the U.S. Air Force. The test pilot instructors at NTPS also come from a range of other backgrounds, including two who served in the Italian Navy and an Australian who spent 15 years in the RAAF.
There are a number of other civilian test pilot schools throughout the world, including the International Test Pilots School (ITPS) located in Canada, The Euro Flight Test located in Germany and The Test Flying Academy of South Africa (TFASA).
TFASA are the Test Flying Academy of South Africa. TFASA provides training to test pilots, flight test engineers, and basic operational instructor pilots under closely controlled security conditions. All training aspects and material are strictly unclassified, and provided either from open source or the clients themselves. No training involves classified tactics or other information, nor any frontline activities.
“TFASA highlights that the training it provides is also available from other civilian contractors including organisations based in the United States of America, Australia, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and European jurisdictions.”
After the indictment of Dan, TFASA stated this: “TFASA has operated with the full knowledge of NATO defence and security agencies for over a decade. Recent communications between the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and the US Air Force Office of Special Investigation and the Society of Experimental Test Pilots indicate that TFASA has broken no laws.”
The indictment of Daniel Duggan references TFASA as a co-conspirator, along with 7 other co-conspirators. Despite the Grand Jury being sworn in November 2016, so far, no other charges in relation to the alleged actions have been laid.
The training as stated by Dan and by TFASA is that any training of these pilots included only publicly available or open-source information.
The indictment of Dan calls into question rights to use our skills in different contexts. Because he trained in the military, does that mean that he is not allowed to use or even discuss his piloting skills anywhere else?