Moloney v New Zealand

In the case of Moloney v New Zealand, the applicants sought to prevent their extradition to New Zealand to face historical child sexual abuse charges. The applicants argued that the long delay in bringing charges and the subsequent loss of evidence and witnesses would make a fair trial impossible. The court had to determine whether the surrender of the applicants to New Zealand would be unjust or oppressive under section 34(2) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). The court also considered whether the applicants had to provide evidence to show that the prosecution could not succeed. The court reviewed the relevant authorities and found that while the applicants did not need to provide evidence of guilt initially, if they could demonstrate that there was no evidence to support the charges or other reasons for a failed prosecution, the court could find the accusation was not made in the interests of justice. The court concluded that the extreme delay, loss of evidence, and unavailability of witnesses created a significant risk of prejudice to the applicants, making a fair trial impossible. Thus, the surrender of the applicants would be unjust and oppressive. The court quashed the magistrate's decision to order extradition and directed the magistrate to release the applicants.