Zurowski v Government of New Zealand

Cindy Elizabeth Zurowski sought judicial review of an order made by the Deputy Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria that she be surrendered to New Zealand for trial on charges of importing a controlled drug. The central issue was whether the applicant had established that it would be unjust to surrender her to New Zealand within the meaning of s 34(2) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). The applicant argued that the evidence against her was so weak that no magistrate would commit her for trial. The Court considered whether it was appropriate to determine contentious questions of admissibility of evidence in proceedings under s 34(1)(c) of the Act, and concluded that it was not. The Court found that the identification evidence, although flawed, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the applicant. The Court also found that there was sufficient evidence to infer a common intention to import the drugs. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed and the order for surrender was confirmed.

The Court's reasoning was based on the principles set out in Kenneally v New Zealand, which held that where there is no evidence against an appellant, there is no prima facie case against the appellant. The Court distinguished Kenneally from the present case, holding that it did not sanction a court determining contentious questions of admissibility of evidence in proceedings under s 34(1)(c) of the Act. The Court also considered the case of Bates v McDonald, which held that the scope and purpose of examining evidence in extradition proceedings is very limited, and is determined by the language and object of the relevant section of the Act. The Court held that it was not appropriate to determine disputed questions of fact or law in the course of determining whether it would be unjust to surrender a person under s 34(2) of the Act. The Court found that the identification evidence, although flawed, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the applicant, and that there was sufficient evidence to infer a common intention to import the drugs. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed and the order for surrender was confirmed.