Nakane v New Zealand

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

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
Appellant

AND:

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
Appellant

AND:

NEW ZEALAND
Respondent

JUDGES:

ROBERTSON, MORTIMER AND WIGNEY JJ

DATE:

13 NOVEMBER 2014

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

  1. This appeal is from the judgment of Nicholas J given on 25 July 2014: Nakane v New Zealand [2014] FCA 772.

  2. 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.

  3. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] FCAFC 153
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Nakane, sought to appeal against the decision of a primary judge who had reviewed and confirmed a magistrate’s order for his surrender to New Zealand. The primary judge had concluded that there was an offence in New Zealand that was sufficiently serious to warrant extradition and that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the appellant committed the offence. The appellant contended that the primary judge failed to properly consider the requirements of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) and that there were significant errors in the application of the law to the facts.

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.