McARTHUR CASE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22400, 22 April 1936, Page 13

McARTHUR CASE

PENDING CHARGE EXTRADITION ORDER LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIED HIGH COURT JUDGMENT By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright (Received April 21, G. 45 p.m.) SYDNEY, April 21 The High Court to-day unanimously dismissed the application of John William Shaw McArthur for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Full Court of New South Wales ordering his extradition to New Zealand under the Fugitive Offenders' Act. It was stated that an information had been laid in New Zealand charging McArthur with having published a prospectus which was false in certain material particulars. A warrant had been issued for tho arrest of McArthur, but it could not be executed in New Zealand because at the time McArthur was in New South Wales. Chief Justice Latham, in delivering judgment, said the offence charged against McArtluir was in respect of the period in which he wi*s director of the Investment Executive Trust of New Zealand, Limited, and the first ground upon which the application to the High Court was based was that the warrant issued by the New Zealand magistrate was invalid because it did not satisfy the requirements of the New Zealand Justices of tho Peace Act. Validity o! New Zealand Warrant " I am of the opinion that the objection that the New Zealand warrant was invalid should not be sustained," said the Chief Justice. He added that he also considered the New South Wales magistrate had authority to endorse the warrant and had jurisdiction to order the return of McArthur to New Zealand. Similar judgments were given by Justices Starke, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan The three last-named judges in a joint judgment said the information against McArthur was laid on oath by a police officer, and it set out that he had just cause to suspect the commission of the offence charged. The informant knew that after the investigation of the circumstances by the Royal Commission the Crown Law authorities had advised the prosecution, and his superior officer had instructed him to lay the information. Nevertheless, he had no personal knowledge of the facts, nor evidence whereby they might be proved. Magistrate's Decision Reviewed Was it necessary that the informant himself should possess, or that he should appear to the Justice to possess, direct knowledge of the circumstances amounting to a just cause for suspecting the offence, or should he produce a witness who possessed or appeared to possess such knowledge? Tho Judges said this was a question of New Zealand law, but it was raised hero because the magistrate was required, before ordering the return of the fugitive, to be satisfied that the warrant was issued by a person having lawful authority. It might be doubted whether this meant morr> than that the magistrate must be satisfied of the existence in the person issuing tho warrant of authority to issue it. The magistrate, in making an order, acted judicially and must have been satisfied by the evidence. The validity of his order as distinguished from tho legal propriety of his making it, could not, in the opinion of the High Court Judges, be affected by an erroneous determination of such a question. BACK TO DOMINION DEPARTURE ON FRIDAY BAIL OF £SOO GRANTED (Received April 21, 10.35 p.m.) SYDNEY, April 21 Mr. Justice Bavin in .Chambers to-day granted bail of £SOO to J. W. S. McArthur' until his departure for New Zealand on Friday. McArthur is to report daily and to sux-render himself to Detective Robinson, of New Zealand, at noon on Friday prior to the departure of the Monowai. In the meanwhile McArthur will be permitted to attend to various business matters.