EXTRADITION SUIT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19700, 4 August 1938, Page 20

EXTRADITION SUIT

APPEAL COURT HEARING ISSUES FOR DECISION (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, this day. The Court of Appeal continued the hearing yesterday afternoon of a motion for a writ of mandamus in regard to the arrest in New South Wales of Karl Jacob Regner by De-tective-Sergeant C. E. Godwin and in regard to Regner’s extradition to New South Wales. Regner is in Auckland at present. On July 8 a warrant for his arrest was produced before Mr. C. R. Orr Walker, S.M., at Auckland, and an application was made that the magistrate endorse the warrant under Section XIII of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. The magistrate refused to endorse the warrant on the ground that undei a decision of the Full Court 01 New Zealand, Part TI of the Act was not applicable to the cast of a fugitive offender in New Zealand whose icturn to New South Wales was requested The Attorney-General, the Hon. H. G. R. Mason conducted the case for the Crown, assisted by Mr. EvansScott, Wellington. Mr. T. Henry, with him Mr. M. F. McCarthy. Auckland, appeared for Regner. Opinions on the Act Trie Attorney-General said the case arose out of the Fugitive Offenders' Act, 1881, and the importance of the present proceedings lay in the fact that this Act was divided. The question really was the availability of Part 11, which was more convenient than part I and its procedure definitely more advantageous. He submitted that, as a result of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900, the whole'area of the Commonwealth of Australia constituted a British possession within the meaning ot the Fugitive Offenders’ Act, 1881. The second proposition was that the rendition of a fugitive might be obtained to the Commonwealth under the Fugitive Offenders’ Act for an offence against the law obtaining in any part of the Commonwealth, that law had its origin in the autnority of the State Legislature or of Ule Commonwealth Legislature, of Imnenal Legislature or in common law. He submitted that whatever moaning was j:iven to the word “legislature the. Commonwealth Parliament would be included in the term, as understood by the Fugitive Offenders Act, The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Mvers: “It is undoubtedly a Legislature.” ... High Court Reasoning Mr. Justice Callan suggested that the ouestion would come'down to this whether a New Zealand couit was going to follow the line of reasoning which, at one time, was accepted by the Commonwealth High Court, or the line of reasoning now accepted by it. The Attorney-General: I shall, ot course, submit that the New Zealand court will follow the most decision of the Commonwealth High Court. . , , The Attorney-General quoted authorities for the contention that the Commonwealth was a British possession within the terms of the Fugitiv Offenders’ Act. Questions that arose in such a case as this were these. Was tire warrant for the offence punishable by law in Australia? Was it duly authenticated? Had it been issued by a person having lawful authority to issue it. and was the person namec in it in. or on his way to New Zealand? If those were answeied m the affirmative, the requirements of the Act were' satisfied. The hearing was adjourned