Release of French pair before ’88 election rejected

Press, 15 April 1986, Page 8

Release of French pair before ’88 election rejected

PA Wellington There was “not a dog’s show” of the convicted Rainbow Warrior bombers, Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur, being released from New Zealand jails before the French Presidential election early in 1988, said the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, yesterday. Mr Lange said he had always accepted the proposition that Mafart and Prieur could be detained by France once they had served a substantial part of their 10-year sentences in New Zealand.

But, he told his postCabinet press conference, he conditioned this proposition with scepticism. He was asked whether his definition of “substantial” could allow the two being handed over to French detention before the French Presidential election early in 1988. “Not a dog’s show,” Mr Lange replied.

He said Mafart and Prieur were not for sale. He could not imagine any French Government being able to keep two persons like Mafart and Prieur in jail in New Caledonia.

"The Right-wing would burn it down,” Mr Lange said. “I have consistently said there will be no release during this term of Government.” Mafart and Prieur would not be sent anywhere until they had served their sentence or until a guaranteed form of detention was available so that they might serve their sentence.

“They will serve a substantial part of their sentence before a repatriation to custody could be considered,” Mr Lange said.

“I have communicated that to the people to whom it ought to be communicated because I was concerned lest two persons have hopes suddenly

rising as a result of reports which have been made.”

There had been no reaction to this communication.

Mr Lange said the French and New Zealand Governments were now engaged in quiet diplomacy.

Mr Lange said Mafart and Prieur could still seek leave to appeal out of time against their 10-year sentences.

“The law you see is in many ways a wise and benign beast and it does not hold people where liberty is involved to strict rigidities,” he said. “There are many people that you can demonstrate that with, going back very many years.” He said the most recent example in New Zealand was the case involving Arthur Allan Thomas.

“Leave to appeal out of time is certainly quite a common feature of the Court of Appeal’s life.”