FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Nakane v New Zealand [2014] FCAFC 153
Citation: Nakane v New Zealand [2014] FCAFC 153 Appeal from: Nakane v New Zealand [2014] FCA 772 Parties: ROBERT NAKANE v NEW ZEALAND File number: NSD 830 of 2014 Judges: ROBERTSON, MORTIMER AND WIGNEY JJ Date of judgment: 13 November 2014 Catchwords: EXTRADITION – New Zealand – appeal from order of primary judge reviewing and confirming magistrate’s order that appellant be surrendered to New Zealand Legislation: Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) ss 34, 35 Cases cited: New Zealand v Johnston (2011) 274 ALR 509 Date of hearing: 13 November 2014 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 14 Counsel for the Appellant on the interlocutory application: Mr B O’Donnell Counsel for the Appellant on the appeal: The Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Callan with Ms R Rodger Solicitor for the Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 830 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: ROBERT NAKANE
AppellantAND: NEW ZEALAND
Respondent
JUDGES:
ROBERTSON, MORTIMER AND WIGNEY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
13 NOVEMBER 2014
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 830 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: ROBERT NAKANE
AppellantAND: NEW ZEALAND
Respondent
JUDGES:
ROBERTSON, MORTIMER AND WIGNEY JJ
DATE:
13 NOVEMBER 2014
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT
This appeal is from the judgment of Nicholas J given on 25 July 2014: Nakane v New Zealand [2014] FCA 772.
As Nicholas J stated at [1] of that judgment, the appellant was the subject of orders made by a Magistrate of the State of New South Wales on 7 March 2014 under s 34(1) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act) requiring that he be surrendered to New Zealand and a further order that, pending surrender, he be committed to prison. Mr Nakane applied to this Court for a review of these orders pursuant to s 35 of the Act.
The general findings made by Nicholas J were, at [16]–[17], that Mr Nakane, who was then known as Robert Boyd, was charged in New Zealand on 6 August 2011 with a number of offences under the Crimes Act 1961 (NZ). These offences included one count of sexual violation by rape contrary to s 128(1)(a) and four counts of sexual conduct with a girl under 12 contrary to s 132(3). He was also charged on two other counts of assault, one under s 202C(A), and another under s 196. The offences with which Mr Nakane had been charged were alleged to have been committed by him at Rotomanu between January and August 2011. Mr Nakane was due to stand…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Nakane v New Zealand and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] FCAFC 153
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in law in confirming the magistrate’s order for extradition. The appellant argued that the primary judge had failed to properly consider the evidence and had not applied the correct legal principles in making his decision. The court considered whether the primary judge had properly exercised his discretion in confirming the magistrate’s order and whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the appellant committed the offence in New Zealand.
The court found that the primary judge had properly considered the evidence and had applied the correct legal principles in making his decision. The court held that the primary judge had properly exercised his discretion in confirming the magistrate’s order and that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the appellant committed the offence in New Zealand. The court found that there was no error in law and dismissed the appeal, with costs. The primary judge’s order for extradition was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.