Maythem Kamil Radhi v The District Court at Manukau and the Commonwealth of Australia

[2017] NZSC 123

NOTE: COURT OF APPEAL ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF MR RADHIʼS WIFE AND CHILDREN REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 57/2017
[2017] NZSC 123

BETWEEN

MAYTHEM KAMIL RADHI
Applicant

AND

THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU
First Respondent

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

Hearing:	17 August 2017
Court:	William Young, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	R M Mansfield for Applicant No appearance for First Respondent M J Lillico and R K Thomson for Second Respondent
Judgment:	18 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Radhi v District Court at Manukau [2017] NZCA 157).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that circumstances of the applicant did not warrant a reference to the Minister of Justice under s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The evidence as to what is likely to happen to the applicant should he be required to stay in Australia for longer than two years which was adduced in the District Court was limited.  It may be that there will be agreement as to what the likely consequences for the applicant would be.  If such agreement cannot be reached, the parties have leave to file affidavits addressed to this issue.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First and Second Respondents