Nakane v New Zealand

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nakane v New Zealand [2014] FCA 772

Citation: Nakane v New Zealand [2014] FCA 772
Parties: ROBERT NAKANE v NEW ZEALAND
File number: NSD 332 of 2014
Judge: NICHOLAS J
Date of judgment: 25 July 2014
Catchwords:

EXTRADITION – whether order should be made confirming order for surrender of applicant to New Zealand – whether Court satisfied of matters referred to in s 34(2) of Extradition Act 1988 (Cth)

Held: Order confirming order for surrender made

Legislation: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 25C
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ) ss 128(1)(a), 132(3), 202C(A), 196(1)(a)
Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) ss 3, 28, 29, 34, 35
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 63
Cases cited: Dietrich v Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
New Zealand v Johnston (2011) 274 ALR 509
New Zealand v Moloney (2006) 154 FCR 250
Rivera v United States of America [2004] FCAFC 154
Date of hearing: 18 July 2014
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 36
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Callan
Solicitor for the Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 332 of 2014

BETWEEN:

ROBERT NAKANE
Applicant

AND:

NEW ZEALAND
Respondent

JUDGE:

NICHOLAS J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 JULY 2014

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The order made by Magistrate Andrews on 7 March 2014 that Robert Nakane (also known as Robert Boyd) be surrendered to New Zealand is confirmed. 

2.The proceeding is otherwise dismissed.

3.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s 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 332 of 2014

BETWEEN:

ROBERT NAKANE
Applicant

AND:

NEW ZEALAND
Respondent

JUDGE:

NICHOLAS J

DATE:

25 JULY 2014

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. Mr Robert Nakane, also known as Mr Robert Boyd, 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 has applied to this Court for a review of these orders pursuant to s 35 of the Act.

    THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

  2. The principal objects of the Act are set out in s 3 and are as follows:

    (a)to codify the law relating to the extradition of persons from Australia to extradition countries and New Zealand and, in particular, to provide for proceedings by which courts may determine whether a person is to be, or is eligible to be, extradited, without determining the guilt or innocence of the person of an offence;

    (b)to facilitate the making of requests for extradition by Australia to other countries; and

    (c)to enable Australia to carry out its obligations…

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] FCA 772
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter involves an application by Mr Nakane to quash orders made by Magistrate John Andrews on 7 March 2014. Mr Nakane sought to have a surrender warrant and a warrant of committal quashed, and New Zealand sought to have them confirmed. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the orders made by the Magistrate were lawful under section 34(1) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). The court had to determine if the evidence presented by New Zealand was sufficient to meet the criteria for issuing a surrender warrant and a warrant of committal.

The court examined the evidence provided by New Zealand, which included affidavits and warrants related to Mr Nakane’s arrest and the extradition process. The evidence showed that Mr Nakane had been arrested and charged in New Zealand, and a warrant to arrest him was issued and executed in Australia. The court considered the procedural correctness of the Magistrate’s orders, focusing on whether the necessary legal standards were met for the issuance of the warrants. The court concluded that the Magistrate had correctly exercised his discretion under the Extradition Act, and the warrants were lawfully issued.

Given the evidence and the applicable legal standards, the court found that the Magistrate's orders were valid and should be confirmed. The court dismissed Mr Nakane's application to quash the orders, affirming that they were properly made in accordance with the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

This proceeding is a re-hearing: see s 35(6)(d) of the Act. The respondent submits that I should confirm the orders of 7 March 2014. Mr Nakane submits that I should quash them: see s 35(2). EVIDENCE New Zealand relied upon affidavit evidence of Antonia Karavias and Robert Jenner. Ms Karavias was not required for cross-examination. Mr Jenner’s affidavit (which was made in a related proceeding) was tendered (Ex A). He was called to give oral evidence and was cross-examined by Mr Nakane. Ms Karavias is a solicitor employed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Those parts of her affidavit which were read mostly serve to identify various documents that were annexed to her affidavit including copies of:·an application under s 29 of the Act for a “Provisional Arrest Warrant” dated 13 June 2013 signed by Robert Jenner;·a “Provisional Arrest Warrant” issued under s 29 of the Act signed by a Magistrate of the State of New South Wales (G. J. Grogin) and dated 13 June 2013 (the Provisional Arrest Warrant);·a “Warrant to Arrest Defendant who is to be Proceeded against by Indictment” issued by District Court Judge A A Zohrab and dated at the Nelson District Court, 13 June 2013 (the NZ District Court Warrant);·the NZ District Court Warrant with an “Endorsement of New Zealand warrant under s 28 of [the Act] authorising execution of warrant in Australia” dated 20 June 2013 signed by Magistrate Graeme Curran (the Endorsed NZ Warrant); ·the “Surrender Warrant” issued under s 34(1) of the Act signed by Magistrate John Andrews and dated 7 March 2014 (the Surrender Warrant); and·the “Warrant of Committal” under s 34(1) of the Act also signed by Magistrate John Andrews and dated 7 March 2014 (the Committal Warrant).Also in evidence is a copy of the Indictment in the matter of Regina v Robert Boyd in the District Court at Greymouth (the Indictment). Mr Jenner is a Police Officer with the Australian Federal Police. He gave evidence based upon immigration records which indicate that Mr Nakane arrived in Australia on a New Zealand passport on 24 January 2013. He also produced a copy of the NZ District Court Warrant the original of which he said was received by the DPP on 19 June 2013. Mr Jenner’s evidence was that he applied for and obtained the Provisional Arrest Warrant issued by Magistrate Grogin (though the name is misspelt in Mr Jenner’s affidavit) on 13 June 2013, and that Mr Nakane was arrested by NSW Police on 13 June 2013. New Zealand also relied upon certain parts of a copy of an affidavit made by Detective Alexandra Emma-Jane York in connection with a criminal matter in the District Court at Nelson in New Zealand. That affidavit was tendered and received into evidence in circumstances where Detective York, who is a detective in the New Zealand Police based at Nelson, was not available for cross-examination. Detective York is named as a witness for the prosecution in the Indictment. I admitted parts of Detective York’s affidavit over Mr Nakane’s objection pursuant to s 63 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). It is not necessary for me to refer to Detective York’s affidavit because the other evidence adduced by the respondent is in my view itself sufficient to establish what the respondent is required to establish under s 34(1) of the Act (see [16]-[21] below).

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.