Extradition to Perth to face drug charges

Press, 15 June 1983, Page 16

Extradition to Perth to face drug charges

A Christchurch man who was said to have absconded from bail in Perth, Western Australia, last year after his arrest there on two heroin charges, will be returned to Perth to face the charges. Judge Pain, in the District Court in Christchurch yesterday, granted an application for the extradition of Anthony Brinkers, aged 24, a lineman. He is wanted in Perth to face trial on charges of possessing heroin with intent to sell or supply the drug to others, and of conspiring to sell or supply heroin. Mr N. W. Williamson appeared for the Crown at yesterday’s hearing. Mr B. McClelland, Q.C., appeared for Brinkers. The application was made under provisions of the Fugitive Offenders’ Act. Detective K. W. Kortegast, of Christchurch, gave evidence that on June 2, acting on information from the Western Australian police, he applied for and was granted a provisional warrant for Brinkers’ arrest. Brinkers was arrested on June 3. Cross-examined, he

said he was;'told by the defendant that; he had lived and.worked in" Christchurch since June last year. He had worked for the Heathcote County Council. Detective-Sefgeant R. F. D. Ibbotson, of the Western Australian police drug squad in Perth, said he arrested Brinkers oh June 16 last year on the two heroin charges. He said the charge of possession of heroin, with intent to sell or supply, carried a maximum sentence of 25 years imprisonment or a fine of $160,000, or both. The conspiracy charge carried a maximum penalty of seven years jail. He said he sought a warrant for Brinkers to be remanded into his custody, to be taken back to Australia to face trial. Cross-examined, the detective said the total weight of the heroin involved in the charges was about 5 grams. He said the amount seized was somewhat less, as some of the drug was “thrown on the floor.” Detective Ibbotson said Brinkers was bailed to appeal; in the petty sessions court in Perth on August 6 last year, but did not appear. Cross-examined, he said he did not have Brinkers’ Christchurch address on his file. He had not made inquiries in Christchurch until recently. Re-examined by Mr Williamson, the detective

said he had not made inquiries in Christchurch after Brinkers had gone missing because inquiries had been carried out initially in Western Australia, then; other parts of Australia, before calling on the New Zealand police. There had also been considerable time spent in bail estreatment proceedings, and .on the application to seek extradition. Mr McClelland submitted that the application for extradition must fail under provisions of section 16 of the Act. He said this provided that a person arrested under a provisional warrant must be discharged unless the original warrant is produced and endorsed within reasonable time. He said that the original warrant was issued in Perth a year ago. There had been an unreasonable delay in having Brinkers arrested under the original warrant. Mr McClelland said Brinkers was known to prison authorities, and the police, in Western Australia and had been visited by his mother from Christchurch and there had been regular correspondence with his home in Christchurch. His Christchurch address must have been known by the authorities, he said.

He had worked under his own name after returning in June last year, and had been “available” to be arrested if any effort had been made to find him or to contact his parents. No such contact was made, until this month.

Mr McClelland submitted that the delay had been an unreasonable one and that the provisional warrant should be discharged. Mr Williamson submitted that section 16 could relate only to the period of delay from the issue of the provisional warrant on June 3 this year, and when it was produced and endorsed, either Monday or yesterday. He said it could not be suggested that this was an unreasonable delay. The Judge said the original warrant for Brinkers’ arrest was issued in Perth last August 6. Proceedings in New Zealand began on June 2 with the issue of a provisional warrant, under which Brinkers was arrested. On June 13, the original warrant was endorsed, pursuant to section 13 of the Act. After traversing the submissions made by both parties, the Judge said the wording in the relevant proviso was clear and unambiguous. . He held that the period involved covered that between Brinkers’ arrest under the provisional, warrant, and the production and endorsement of the original warrant. The Judge said that delay was only 11 days, which was certainly within a reasonable time. He ordered, in terms of the act, that Brinkers be put in Detective Ibbotson’s custody and returned to Perth.