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 63Cases 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 154Date 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
ApplicantAND: 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
ApplicantAND: NEW ZEALAND
Respondent
JUDGE:
NICHOLAS J
DATE:
25 JULY 2014
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
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
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…
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] FCA 772
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.