B v United Kingdom - [2025] NZHC 1322

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT

PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF

VICTIM(S)/CONNECTED PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000634

[2025] NZHC 1322

BETWEEN
B

Appellant

AND

THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

Respondent

Hearing: 20 May 2025

Appearances:

H Alderton for Appellant

F Culliney and H Brown for Respondent

Judgment:

26 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 May 2025 at 3.00 pm.

……………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

B v UNITED KINGDOM [2025] NZHC 1322 [26 May 2025]

[1] The appellant, Mr B, has been charged with sexual offending against his biological daughter in the United Kingdom over the period 2008 to 2015 when the complainant was between the ages of eight and 15 years of age. Four of the nine charges are for the alleged rape of a child under the age of 13.

[2] The complainant made the allegations about Mr B to her doctor in October 2018. She then made a complaint to the Police in the United Kingdom (UK Police) within a month after Mr B emigrated to New Zealand in February 2019.

[3] Following the complaint, the UK Police began their investigation. That included a mutual assistance request to the New Zealand Police in May 2020 to interview Mr B. Mr B attended a voluntary interview in June 2020 in which he denied the allegations. The UK Police investigation concluded in 2021 with authorisation to prosecute. In March 2023 the United Kingdom issued a warrant for Mr B’s arrest in March 2023. Extradition proceedings commenced and the United Kingdom arrest warrant was endorsed in New Zealand on 11 June 2024.

[4] Mr B initially consented to extradition but then contested his eligibility for surrender. On 25 October 2024, Judge Winter in the Auckland District Court concluded that Mr B was eligible for surrender to the United Kingdom to face trial.1 Mr B now appeals.

Statutory context

[5] The United Kingdom is a designated country under the Extradition Act 1999 (Act),2 and therefore can utilise the “backed warrant” procedure under the Act which is a fast-track procedure for extradition.3

[6] Eligibility for surrender under part 4 does not require the determination of the Court that a prima facie case to put the person on trial is shown on evidence. The role of the Court is limited to being satisfied that the formal steps required by the legislation

1      United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v “B” [2024] NZDC 22904 [Judgment under appeal].
2      Extradition (United Kingdom and Pitcairn Islands) Order 2003, cl 3(1).
3      Extradition Act 1999, pt 4.

have been complied with, that the person is extraditable, that the offence is an extradition one,4…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read B v United Kingdom 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: [2025] NZHC 1322
Decision Date: 26 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of B v United Kingdom, the appellant Mr B appealed the decision of Judge Winter in the Auckland District Court that he was eligible for surrender to the United Kingdom to face trial on charges of sexual offending against his biological daughter. The appellant's eligibility for surrender under the Extradition Act 1999 was contested on the basis of s 8(1)(b) and s 8(1)(c) of the Act, which provide discretionary restrictions on surrender if it would be unjust or oppressive due to the lack of good faith in the accusation or significant delay in bringing the extradition proceedings. The grounds of appeal were that the District Court Judge erred in law by rejecting the good faith and interests of justice arguments and applying the incorrect legal test for oppression.

The High Court found that the District Court Judge was correct in rejecting the good faith arguments. The Court held that the reference to an "accusation not made in good faith" in s 8(1)(b) relates to the prosecuting authorities, not the complainant. The Court also found that the conduct of the UK Police did not amount to a lack of good faith. Regarding the oppression argument, the Court held that the significant delay in bringing the extradition proceedings did not meet the high threshold for oppression under s 8(1)(c) of the Act. The Court found that the delay, while lengthy, was not excessive and did not result in oppressive hardship to Mr B.

The Court dismissed Mr B's appeal and confirmed the decision of the District Court Judge that Mr B was eligible for surrender to the United Kingdom to face trial. The appeal was a re-hearing but the High Court found no reversible error or basis to persuade it to a different conclusion. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the District Court Judge was confirmed.

Orders