Martin James Mailley v District Court at North Shore and New Zealand Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 36/2016
[2016] NZSC 73

BETWEEN

MARTIN JAMES MAILLEY
Applicant

AND

DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE
First Respondent

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	F M R Cooke QC for Applicant P J Gunn for First Respondent N E Walker and K E Hogan for Second Respondent
Judgment:	20 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Mailley faces extradition to Australia with regard to fraud charges. He seeks leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal decision[1] dismissing his appeal against an unsuccessful application for judicial review[2] of a decision of the District Court[3] that s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999 did not apply to his case.[4]
[1]Mailley v District Court at North Shore [2016] NZCA 83 (Randerson, Wild and Kós JJ) [Mailley (CA)].
[2]Mailley v District Court at North Shore [2014] NZHC 2816 (Keane J).
[3]Commonwealth of Australia v Mailley DC North Shore CRI-2008-044-1978, 20 June 2014 (Judge Pippa Sinclair).
[4]An earlier decision of the Court of Appeal had required s 48(4)(a)(ii) to be considered: Mailley v District Court at North Shore [2013] NZCA 266 (O’Regan P, Harrison and French JJ). The full background of the facts and case history can be found in Mailley (CA), above n 1, at [4]–[18].
The first respondent abides the decision of the Court. The second respondent opposes the application.

Our assessment

The interpretation of s 48(4) of the Extradition Act may be a matter of general or public importance. But, given the factual findings in the courts below, nothing raised by Mr Mailley suggests that the outcome may have been different on the interpretation he proposes.
It is not therefore in the interests of justice to grant his application for leave to appeal.

Solicitors:
Power Law, Wellington for Applicant
Crown Law, Wellington for First Respondent
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau City for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Martin James Mailley applied for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal. His appeal was against an unsuccessful application for judicial review of a decision of the District Court that section 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999 did not apply to his case. Mailley faces extradition to Australia to face fraud charges. The court was required to decide whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted.

The Court found that the interpretation of section 48(4) of the Extradition Act may be a matter of general or public importance. However, given the factual findings in the courts below, nothing raised by Mr Mailley suggests that the outcome may have been different on the interpretation he proposes. Therefore, it was not in the interests of justice to grant his application for leave to appeal.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The first respondent abides the decision of the Court, and the second respondent opposes the application. The Court found that the applicant's proposed interpretation of section 48(4) of the Extradition Act did not suggest that the outcome may have been different. The Court did not grant leave to appeal as it was not in the interests of justice to do so.

There are no further orders to be made. The first respondent abides the decision of the Court, and the second respondent opposes the application. The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established