New Zealand v Johnston

In the case of New Zealand v Johnston, New Zealand sought the extradition of a 69-year-old Australian citizen, Brian Johnston, to face serious charges of sexual interference with a minor, which allegedly occurred in the 1970s. Johnston appealed a decision made by a single judge of the Federal Court, who had ordered his release. The appeal was heard by a Full Court of the Federal Court, which needed to determine whether the primary judge had erred in his decision. The key legal issues were whether the primary judge had erred in confirming the release order and whether the New Zealand police officer who laid the charges had acted in good faith and in the interests of justice.

The Full Court held that the primary judge had erred in concluding that it would be unjust to surrender Johnston to New Zealand. However, the Full Court found no error in the primary judge's conclusion that extradition would not be oppressive. The court emphasised the importance of prosecuting child sexual offenders and noted that the hardships experienced by Johnston would "pale into insignificance" compared to the legitimate public interest in having the charges dealt with in New Zealand. The Full Court also held that Johnston had not proven that the police officer had not acted in good faith and in the interests of justice. Therefore, the Full Court allowed the appeal and ordered Johnston's extradition to New Zealand.

The Full Court made several orders, including allowing the appeal, setting aside the orders made by the primary judge, quashing the order made by a NSW magistrate, and ordering a magistrate of the Local Court of NSW to surrender Johnston to New Zealand. Additionally, Johnston was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and the review conducted by the primary judge.