McARTHUR’S APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 131, 27 February 1936, Page 13

McARTHUR’S APPEAL

Question of Extradition to

New Zealand

VALIDITY OF WARRANT Melbourne, February 26. The High Court has begun the hearing of argument on the motion on behalf of J. W. S. McArthur for special leave to appeal against the New South Wales Supreme Court’s judgment dismissing his application for a writ of prohibition directed against his extradition order. Mr. Ham, K. 0., contended on behalf of the appellant that the warrant, which was issued in New Zealand under the Fugitive Offenders Act, was invalid because the circumstances of its Issue had not satisfied the New Zealand law, and as there was no sworn information by a person having personal knowledge of the offence alleged against McArthur. The New Zealand detective, Mr. F. Robinson, had admitted in his depositions that he knew nothing about the circumstances, and had merely acted upon the Instructions of his superior officers. Mr. Ham also claimed that the only legislative authority capable of conferring jurisdiction upon a magistrate to order a fugitive’s return was the Commonwealth Parliament which, up to the present, had made no law cover ing the particular circumstances of McArthur's case. Mr. Monahan, for the Crown Solicitor of New South Wales, argued that for the purpose of the Fugitive Offenders Act all Australian States remained a “British possession.” “The Commonwealth” as used in the proclamation of the 1925 order-in-counci! was merely a geographical expression to save naming the states individually. The question of lack of jurisdiction, therefore, did not arise. The applicant had left New Zealand and gone to live in New South Wales and could therefore be dealt with by any Magistrate in the Commonwealth whose jurisdiction extended to New South Wales. The court reserved judgment.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court on December 24 dismissed the appeal of J. W. S. McArthur against tlie magistrate's order that he should be returned to New Zealand to face a charge of naving issued a prospectus alleged to be false in certain respects. The Full Court ordered that McArthur should not be returned until January 31 unless the High Court ordered otherwise, the period of grace bein- allowed so that McArthur might seek from the High Court special leave to appeal against the decision, line court waft unanimous'in dismissing the appeal and by a majority ruled that the warrant for his arrest issued in New Zealand was valid Mr. Justice Street dissented from tlie latter part of tlie judgment, but cod not publish his reasons. Referring to the New Zealand warrant. Mr. Justice Lavin said he could see no ground on the evidence before him to suggest that the warrant had been issued without jurisdiction.