Extradition Order Awaited

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31586, 25 January 1968, Page 20

Extradition Order Awaited

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter —Copyright) LONDON, Jan. 24. Robert John Gardner, aged 36, a company director, for whom the New Zealand Government is seeking an extradition order to face fraud charges, was committed in custody to Brixton Prison yesterday to await directions from the Home Secretary.

Gardner, who appeared at the Well Street Magistrate’s Court yesterday, is accused of false pretences over the dealings of a cosmetic company in Auckland, Leidrum and Hartnell, by representing it as a bona-fide business. The prosecution has said the charges concerned $lOO,OOO. The Magistrate, Mr K. Barraclough, told Gardner: “You will not be surrendered to the New Zealand Government until the expiration of 15 days. During that time you

can make any application you wish for a writ of habeas corpus or any like process.” A defending solicior said aferwards that an application was “most likely.” Sufficient Evidence The Magistrate said he was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial for the defendant if the offences had been committed within the jurisdiction of his court. In earlier proceedings, an extradition order was made against Gardner, but this was quashed after an appeal to the High Court. His defending counsel successfully argued on legal differences between the two countries and the charges were reframed to apply under British law. Previous Arrests Detective Sergeant J. Sheehan, of Auckland’s Central Investigation Bureau, said he had arrested two other persons in New Zealand in June last year over the company’s dealings. They stood trial and were acquitted. An extradition attempt in Australia against another man named Chaplin had failed.

Detective Sergeant Sheehan said the company had been convicted in New Zealand court proceedings. Contractors Blamed In his closing speech for Gardner, Mr P. Wrightson said there was no motive for the fraud because the firm was doing well. Mr Wrightson said there was a “great distinction” between company transactions with agents that Gardner handled and others. “There is no evidence the

company was started as a bogus concern and that these people were ‘sold round’,” he added.