New Australians’ Concern At Possibility Of Extradition

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27961, 7 May 1956, Page 17

New Australians’ Concern At Possibility Of Extradition

(Australian Correspondent N.Z.P.A.)

(sec- 8 p.m.) SYDNEY. May 6. A widely discussed question among 200 000 new Australians who have migrated to Australia from behind the Tron Curtain since the end of World y-gr n is how safe is their political BS vlum. . . The cause of their worry is Jugoslavia's recent attempt to extradite Rogoljub Rancic. a Jugoslav-born naturalised Australian citizen. Raijcic reaped ffFm Communist-donr natcd Jugoslavia, and reached Australia in 1950. He became a naturalised Austrai?n on February 2 of this year, recently the Jugoslav Government sought his extradition because they claimed he had stolen the equivalent P f £A1056 from the Jugoslav Republic and should face a criminal law court in his former country. A 54-year-old extradition treaty between Australia and the kingdom of Serbia (the legal predecessor of what is now Jugoslavia) stipulates that the two countries will extradite common criminals to ea°h other. But the treaty also says that no-one would be handed over to a foreign government for oolitical crimes. Though Rancic protested that the Jugoslav Government was persecuting him for political reasons, he was arrested in Sydney. Eventually he was released on bail pending Court proceedings. hi«= case came before r Magistrate’s Court on April 20, the Jugoslav Government’s application was dismissed on the basis of section 111 of the Australian-Serb extradition treaty which says that, “either-Gov-ernment may. in its absolute discretion. refuse to surrender its own subjects to the other Government.” Dr. Emery Bares, a prominent new Australian and an authoritative writer on foreign affairs, says this was a leeallv correct, a diplomatically smooth, and for Rancic. a personally satisfying way out of a comr Seated dilemma. Yet. adds Dr. Bares, neither Australian legal experts nor new Australians from behind the Iron Curtain were reassured.

Sir John Latham, a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. urged the Federal Government to revise Australia’s extradition treaties with other countries to protect migrants who have escaned Communist domination by coming to Australia from the “far-reaching arms of totalitarian terror.”

Dr. Bares asked: “What would have happened to Rancic if he had not been a naturalised Australian? Or what would happen to other anti-Commun-ists in similar situations in the future if an Australian Government, with more sympthy with ‘proofs’ supplied by a regime, were in power?”

He said that 200:000 new Australians from Iron Curtain countries, and those who will come, might feel much safer if the statutes of Australia were revised so that no new Australians were sent back to their native countries unless there was a “real" case on the extradition offence against the accused, and in the country seeking the extradition, principles of fairness and justice governed both police action and judicial procedure.

The case of a Russian-born migrant who is returning to Russia, even if he has to leave his wife and two children in Sydney, is attracting wide interest and sympathy.

The migrant. Stefan Babich, ased 38, if a railway worker. He lives with his

St’Sa’n'T e ’A Mar i. a .’ aged 30 - his son - Mr?' n'u 2 dau 3 h ter. Isabel. 10. ha ¥ f said t at . her husband tain»H d J roI P hls i° b and obreturn ♦; n far l S e whole tami,v to to go with h™ a ' But She has rPfused tol’ri n h»r It ih’ l ? r! L tion Dc P ar tment has hnrhanH e that sh ? cannot prevent her h mS n ? 0 T returning to Russia. f a mu S Bab ’ch said: "We were a hanpy rn? h..?K tl! a about a year ago. wh ?h R,Li h b u nd .J ecelve d letters from Kussi» He then decided he wanted io go home. °? n h t S - ? e , en drawn to ‘he JJ at Babich leaves the country and deserts his wife he will create a precedent. It would show jne way to some other migrants how to overcome matrimonial and parental responsibilities.