ISSUE EXAMINED

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 148, 25 June 1938, Page 8

ISSUE EXAMINED

EXTRADITION LAWS

AUSTRALIA AND N.Z.

Referring last evening to a recent cablegram from Sydney stating that another effort to clarify the extradition laws as between the Australian States and New Zealand had been originated by New South Wales, the Attorney-General (the Hon. H. G. B. Mason) explained the position as it appeared in New Zealand. "Extradition between New Zealand and Australia is regulated by the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881, which is an Act of the Imperial Parliament," Mr. Mason said. "The Act is in two parts, of which part 2, or rather an Imperial Order in Council made under part 2, provides for a procedure between certain parts of the Empire which is much simpler and more expeditious than that required in other cases—the latter procedure being described in the cablegram as 'the more cumbersome, costly, and slow methods in part 1 of the Act.'

"A decision given by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in 1935 caused considerable embarrassment to the Commonwealth of Australia. The effect of this decision was briefly that it was not possible (under part 2 of the Act) to extradite a criminal to one of the Australian States there to stand his trial for an offence against the laws of that State. The opinion of the Court was that the simpler procedure provided by part 2 could be resorted to only if the person to be extradited to Australia had committed an offence against the Federal Australian law.

"This decision appears to be in conflict with the interpretation accepted in Australia, and naturally both Governments wish the position clarified)" the Minister stated. "It is now two years since the New Zealand Government cabled to the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth stating that the New ' Zealand Government fully realised the embarrassment occasioned by the conflict of decisions, and that the New Zealand Attorney-General would take the earliest opportunity of having the issue further examined in the Courts. "The next time, therefore, on which there is occasion to extradite an Australian criminal from New Zealand, the New Zealand Government will do its best to have the question at issue reopened in the Courts with a view to seeing whether the conflict of decisions can be resolved. .. .

"The cablegram may Imply that the Australian Government wishes the matter to be cleared up immediately, whereas the cablegram of the New Zealand Government proposes to do so only when next an actual case arises. It may be mentioned that during the past two years no case has arisen to provide an opportunity for the matter to receive further judicial consideration."