EXTRADITION LAWS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIX, 31 January 1936, Page 5

EXTRADITION LAWS

PRIVY COUNCIL CASE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF AUSTRALIA (United Press Association —By Electric Telegrap h- -Copy right) LONDON, 29th January. The New South Wales AttorneyGeneral, Mr 11. E. Manning, is engaged on a matter arising out of a move to secure extradition by New South Wales from New Zealand of a person alleged to have committed an offence against the laws of New South Wales. It was argued in the New Zealand court that as the State of New South Wales was only one constituent State of the Commonwealth, the words “British possession” must mean the Commonwealth, not an individual |>tate. . As the legislative powers of the Commonwealth are very restricted in criminal matters this would mean that there were well-known offences in respect ol which the extradition laws would not apply. It is desired to refer to the Privy Council the question of whether or not “British possession” within the meaning of the Fugitive Offenders Act is to be construed as including individual States, as well as the Commonwealth. In tho event of the Privy Council not being prepared to deal with the matter it is proposed to request the Imperial authorities to alter the. law as may be necessary.

The judgment referred to in the above message was given by the Full Court of New Zealand and formed one phase of the 14-weeks’ legal battle which ultimately resulted in William Campbell and Madge Munro, charged with stealing sharfe script in Sydney being escorted 'back to Australia by Detective Findlay, whose name figures in the case reported above. The Full Court on 2nd April last freed the prisoners, finding that the warrant of remand was bad in law and that the writ of habeas corpus which had jbeen applied for should issue. The court held that prisoners who might have infringed the law of New South Wales were not covered by the Fugitive Offenders Act (Imperial), as that Act was made to apply to the Commonwealth as a whole and not to separate States.