American pupil to leave next month

Press, 25 November 1980, Page 2

American pupil to leave next month

The American youth who began a planned year's study at Christ’s College in May of this year but was convicted on an overstaying

charge in October, will be able to remain to complete the school year. The pupil, James McDonald, aged 19, of Texas, was convicted on October 13 by

a ■ Judge Paterson in the Diss trict Court on a charge of ii remaining in New Zealand > | beyond the one month’s vis’iitor’s permit issued to him.

• He had been remanded on bail to yesterday, pending deportation. However, yesterday the Court was told that advice ihad been received last Friday from the Under-se-cretary of Immigration (Mr Malcolm) that the deportation order had been waived and McDonald granted a temporary permit to remain in New Zealand until December 15. He must produce airline flight tickets and other travel arrangements. and have his passport in order before then. Yesterday, Judge Frampton made orders discharging McDonald’s surety from the bail bond, and releasing his passport tQ him. McDonald did not appear. Mr D. J. L. Saunders appeared for the Immigration Department and Mr J . G. Matthews for the defendant. McDonald had been convicted after a defended hearing last month on the overstaying offence.

Evidence was given that McDonald had returned to study for a year, after finding New Zealand, and parricularly Christchurch, to his liking during a visit with his family in 1977. He had arrived in May, and was enrolled at Christ’s College.

McDonald had used the normal one month’s visitor’s permits issued to arrivals, and believed that his visitor’s status would be resolved, to allow him to study, because of applications by his father to the New Zealand Consul-General in Los Angeles. When convicting McDonald after the hearing last month, Judge Paterson said he had been asked by Mr P. F. Woolley, counsel for McDonald at that hearing, to stretch to the limit the discretions he had under the Immigration Act, in McDonald’s favour. However, he considered the Court could not make any variation on the matter of strict liability. The Court’s hands were tied, as were those of the department’s officers.

The guidelines had to be the same for everybody and any discretion to allow the defendant to remain was in the hands of the Minister of Immigration and not for comment from the Court, the Judge had said. The Wellington reporter of “The Press,” says that Mr Malcolm said that McDonald and his advisers had at no time sought to argue the case publicly and had not disclosed the grounds for appeal.

“Under these ‘ circumstances, there are ■ no points to which I need reply publicly,” he said.