White v United Kingdom - [2023] NZHC 2055

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-000218

[2023] NZHC 2055

UNDER Section 68, Extradition Act 1999

BETWEEN

STEVEN PAUL WHITE

Appellant

AND

UNITED KINGDOM

Respondent

Hearing: 17 July 2023

Appearances:

S Wimsett for the Appellant

R McCoubrey for the Respondent

Judgment:

4 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 August 2023 at 11 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
S Wimsett, Barrister, Auckland

WHITE v UNITED KINGDOM [2023] NZHC 2055 [4 August 2023]

[1] The appellant, Steven White, appeals on questions of law from a decision of Judge S Bonnar KC in the District Court at Auckland on 12 April 2023.1 Judge Bonnar found that Mr White was eligible for surrender to the United Kingdom in relation to seven offences of indecent assault for which Mr White’s extradition was sought.2

[2]In the District Court there was no dispute that:3

(a)a warrant for Mr White’s arrest endorsed under s 41 of the Extradition Act 1999 (the Act) had been produced to the Court;4

(b)Mr White is an extraditable person in relation to the United Kingdom;5 and

(c)the alleged offences are extradition offences in relation to the United Kingdom.6

[3] In the District Court Mr White argued, unsuccessfully, that he was not eligible for surrender under the discretionary restrictions in s 8(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.7

District Court decision

[4] The Judge first referred to the factual background for the alleged offences. They were said to have occurred between 1 October 2002 and 31 March 2003 when the complainant was a 15 year old schoolgirl at a school in the Greater Manchester area. Mr White was a 28 year old teacher at the school where the complainant was a pupil. The alleged indecent assault involved allegations of kissing and intimate touching.

1      Appeals to the High Court against determinations of eligibility for surrender are restricted to questions of law only: Extradition Act 1999, s 68.
2      United Kingdom v White [2023] NZDC 7008.
3 At [13].
4      Extradition Act, s 45(2)(a).
5      Section 45(2)(b)(i).
6      Section 45(2)(b)(ii).
7      Section 8(1)(b) applies if the accusation was not made in good faith in the interests of justice;     s 8(1)(c) relates to the passage of time since the alleged offence; and in either instance where, in all the circumstances, it would be unjust or oppressive to surrender the person.

[5] The Judge noted that although the complainant alleged sexual intercourse also took place between herself and Mr White on several occasions, Mr White does not face any charges in the United Kingdom in relation to those allegations as the relevant offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 is time-barred.

[6] The Judge stated that there was no dispute between the parties as to the relevant chronology of events and accordingly adopted the chronology set out in the submissions on behalf of the United Kingdom, annexing them to his judgment. The…

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 White 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: [2023] NZHC 2055
Decision Date: 4 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steven White appeals against the decision of the District Court that he is eligible for surrender to the United Kingdom in relation to seven offences of indecent assault. The District Court found that Mr White was eligible for surrender despite his arguments that the allegations against him were not made in good faith and that it would be oppressive to surrender him to the United Kingdom. Mr White raises three grounds of appeal: (a) the District Court erred in law by not considering relevant matters regarding the conduct of the prosecuting authorities; (b) the District Court erred in not giving enough weight to the complainant’s conduct when assessing bad faith; and (c) the District Court erred by failing to consider it would be oppressive to surrender Mr White due to the positive relationship he had with the complainant. The High Court found that none of the grounds of appeal were valid. The Court found that there was no bad faith on the part of the prosecuting authorities or the complainant. The Court also found that the passage of time and changes in Mr White’s circumstances did not meet the threshold for oppression. The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the determination of the District Court that Mr White is eligible for surrender.

Orders