Extradition Laws

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 148, 25 June 1938, Page 4

Extradition Laws

Australian and New Zealand EXPLANATION OF THE POSITION Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night. A recent cable from Sydney stated that another effort to clarify tho extra- j ditiou laws as between Australian States and New Zealand has been originated by New South Wales. In a statement to-night the Attorney-General (Hon. H. G. K. 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 tho Imperial Parliament,” ho stated. “Tho Act is in two parts, of which part 2 —or rather, an Imperial Order-in-Council made under part 2 provides for tho 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 cable as ‘more cumbersome, costly and slow than the methods in part 1 of the Act.’ “A decision given by the Supremo Court of New Zealand in 1935 caused considerable embarrassment to tho Commonwealth of Australia. Tho 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 au offence against the Federal Australian laws. This decision appears to be in conflict with the interpretation accepted in Australia, and naturally both Governments wish the position clarified. 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 tho conflict of decisions, aud that the New Zcalaud Attorney-General would take the earliest opportunity of having tho 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 issqo reopened in the Courts, with a view to seeing whether the conflict of decisions can be resolved. The cable may imply that the Australian Government wishes the matter to be cleared up immediately, whereas the cable of the New Zealand government proposes to do so

only when the next actual case arises. It may be mentioned that, during the past two years, no case has urisen to provide an opportunity for the matter to receive further judicial consideration.”