PLAKAS V POLICE HC AK CIV 2008-404-2412

PLAKAS V POLICE HC AK CIV 2008-404-2412 12 June 2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2008-404-2412UNDER The Extradiction Act 1999 BETWEEN GEORGE PLAKAS Appellant AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 12 June 2008 Appearances: G N Bradford for appellant D Johnstone for respondent Judgment: 12 June 2008JUDGMENT OF ALLAN JSolicitors: Crown Solicitor Auckland G N Bradford, gneb@xtra.co.nz Auckland[1] Mr Plakas faces fraud charges in Victoria, Australia. On 4 April 2008, Judge Aitken ruled in the District Court at Auckland that he was eligible for surrender, pursuant to s 45 of the Extradition Act 1999. Mr Plakas appealed against that decision. In a reserved judgment delivered yesterday, Randerson J dismissed the appeal. [2] The effect of that judgment was to render Mr Plakas vulnerable to surrender to the Australian Police, and to be escorted to Melbourne in order to face the charges laid there. [3] Mr Bradford for Mr Plakas advises he has instructions from Mr Plakas to seek leave to appeal pursuant to s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act. In the meantime, he seeks a stay of the order made in the District Court on 4 April 2008, on the basis that if no stay is granted, the appellant's appeal rights will be rendered nugatory. There is no dispute as to the Court's jurisdiction to grant a stay for surrender. [4] Mr Johnstone for the respondent has no instructions from the Australian Police, who are substantively the respondents, but neither does he raise any formal opposition to the grant of a stay. I am satisfied a stay is necessary in order to ensure that the appellant's appeal rights are not destroyed. [5] There is however a procedural problem. I am grateful to Mr Johnstone for raising it for the Court's consideration. The combined effect of ss 47 and 57 of the Extradition Act is that unless there is a pending appeal, time commences to run as from the date of the dismissal by Randerson J of the District Court appeal. The significance of that is that s 57 provides that a person must be surrendered or conveyed out of New Zealand under a surrender order within two months of the date upon which time commences to run. If that does not occur, then the person concerned may apply to a Judge of the High Court to be discharged. Mr Johnstone was quite properly concerned that the effect of the order made in the District Court is not dissipated simply by the effluxion of time, unless careful attention is paid to timing issues in respect of the pending application for leave to appeal.[6] I am prepared to grant a stay of the District Court order, and do so accordingly. [7] But it is on condition that Mr Bradford files in this Court and serves on the respondent by 5 pm on Tuesday next, 17 June, an application for leave to appeal. If that does not occur then the present order for stay will be automatically discharged. If such an application is filed, the matter will be in the hands of the Judge who hears the application. [8] By reason of the timing problems to which I have referred above, the scheduling manager is asked to allocate an early one hour fixture for the hearing of the application for leave. In my view the application ought to be heard at the latest within 14 days of today's date. [9] The question of further timing will be in the hands of the Judge who hears the application for leave.C J Allan J