Curtis v Commonwealth of Australia

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA234/2017
[2018] NZCA 22

BETWEEN	JASON LEONARD CURTIS Applicant
AND	COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Respondent

Hearing:	19 February 2018
Court:	Winkelmann, Asher and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	D P Hoskin and C Liang for Applicant K E Hogan for Respondent
Judgment:	26 February 2018 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Winkelmann J)

Leave to appeal is granted, under ss 68 and 69 of the Extradition Act 1999, in respect of the following questions of law:[1]
[1]Curtis v Commonwealth of Australia [2017] NZHC 624.
Did Lang J err in his interpretation and application of s 8(1)(c) of the Extradition Act 1999:
(a)In weighing as relevant to the issue of whether ordering the surrender of Mr Curtis would be unjust or oppressive, asserted complicity on the part of Mr Curtis in delay in the extradition proceedings in light of the absence (or otherwise) of connection between Mr Curtis’ conduct and that delay, Mr Curtis’ age when he left Australia and other circumstances relevant to that delay; and
(b)In failing to address the totality of the matters raised for Mr Curtis as establishing that it would be unjust or oppressive to surrender him to the Australian authorities, and in particular the totality of the circumstances of his departure from Australia, continued residence in New Zealand, the delay in the extradition proceedings (including the cause of that delay), the effect of that delay on Mr Curtis’ opportunity for an alternative resolution of his alleged offending, Mr Curtis’ age when relevant events took place and his present personal circumstances.

Solicitors:
Steindle Williams, Auckland for Applicant
Crown Solicitor, Manukau for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Jason Leonard Curtis against the Commonwealth of Australia. Curtis sought leave to appeal a decision made by Lang J, which had ruled that he should be surrendered to Australia. The primary issue was whether the trial judge had correctly interpreted and applied section 8(1)(c) of the Extradition Act 1999 when considering whether surrendering Curtis would be unjust or oppressive. This involved examining the relevance of Curtis's alleged complicity in delaying the extradition proceedings, his age when he left Australia, and other relevant circumstances. The appeal also questioned whether the judge had adequately considered the totality of the circumstances, including the cause and effect of the delay in the proceedings, Curtis's continued residence in New Zealand, and his present personal circumstances.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, focusing on two specific legal questions. Firstly, the court scrutinized whether Lang J was correct in considering Curtis's complicity in the delay as a relevant factor, given the lack of connection between Curtis's conduct and the delay. Secondly, the court examined if the trial judge had failed to consider the overall context of Curtis's case, including the delay's impact on his opportunity for an alternative resolution of the alleged offenses, his age during the relevant events, and his current personal situation. Winkelmann J, delivering the judgment, concluded that these issues warranted further judicial consideration.

The reasoning behind the Court of Appeal's decision underscored the necessity of a thorough examination of all relevant factors when determining whether surrendering an individual under an extradition treaty would be unjust or oppressive. The court found that Lang J's interpretation and application of section 8(1)(c) required more detailed consideration, particularly in balancing the delay caused by the individual against the overall circumstances of the case. Consequently, the appeal was granted, allowing Curtis to challenge the trial judge's decision on these specific legal grounds.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted in respect of the questions of law specified, thus enabling Curtis to pursue his appeal further.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established