Govt’s last effort to recover Maori artefact

Press, 11 March 1983, Page 27

Govt’s last effort to recover Maori artefact

NZPA London New Zealand had no right to recover a valuable carved Maori storefront illegally exported in 1972 under governing legislation, a House of Ix>rds appeal has been told. Mr Paul Baker. Q.C.. counsel for a Bolivian tin magnate. Mr George Ortiz, who bought the pre-European storefront (pataka) after it had been smuggled to the United States, told five Law Lords, under Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. that the Historic Articles Act, 1962. gave New Zealand no authority over antiquities beyond its territorial waters. Seizing within the boundaries of New Zealand was an essential prerequisite of forfeiture. and as New Zealand had not done that, it could not now claim ownership of the pataka, he told the LawLords. Mr Baker was speaking on 1 the second day of the appeal. ' which represents the Government's final bid to recover the pataka, which was dug up in a Taranaki swamp. After being smuggled out of New Zealand, it came to light in 1978 when Mr Ortiz attempted to auction it in London to raise money for

his kidnapped daughter's ransom. The Government took out a Court injunction to block the auction, and the English High Court ruled in favour of New Zealand ownership in 1980. However, this was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 1981. The New Zealand counsel. Mr Andrew Morritt. Q.C.. told the House of Lords appeal that any historicarticle smuggled out of the country was automatically forfeited to the Government under the 1962 act. His colleague. Mr N. Patten. said that in the previous Lower Court proceedings, the argument had hinged on the words “shall be forfeited" at the beginning of the act. "We contend this means automatic forfeiture," he said. The Law Lords continued to comment on the difficulty of trying New Zealand lawunder the English legal system. "One of the difficulties of bringing a foreign case to this court is that points of law must be treated as points of fact, and not discussed as points of law." said

Lord Scarman. However. Lord Brandon suggested that the 1962 act and the Customs Act. 1913. recognised that it was futile to provide for goods that had "escaped the net." "You cannot forfeit goods once they have been exported unless you use the Navy or Air Force to intercept them before they have left your territory." he said. Lord Brandon said that the purpose of the 1962 act was only to forfeit that which was within New Zealand, and that which was capable of being seized. "They were not attempting to forfeit goods which had already been exported. They realised that is no good." he said. Lord Scarman believed the act was not intended to have extra-territorial affect. "But there is a lot going for the act even if forfeiture is impossible." he said, after earlier saying that he found much to admire in NewZealand statute law of that period. "New Zealand was far more advanced in statute than we were, indeed are even now." he said