CURTIS v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA [2018] NZCA 22
Leave to appeal was granted because the Court identified arguable errors of law in the High Court judge's application of s 8(1)(c): specifically potential misapplication of the relevance of alleged complicity in delay absent required nexus and failure to assess the totality of circumstances relevant to whether...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZCA 22
- Parties
- Applicant: Jason Leonard Curtis; Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 26 February 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Extradition / Application for Leave to Appeal Granted
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- S 8(1)(c) Extradition Act 1999, Delay and Prejudice, Complicity in Delay, Assessment of Totality of Circumstances, Youth and Culpability
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jason Leonard Curtis
Applicant
Commonwealth of Australia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Application for Leave to Appeal Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Lang J erred in interpreting and applying s 8(1)(c) by treating asserted complicity in delay as relevant absent a connection between the applicant's conduct and the delay and his age when he left Australia
- 2 Whether Lang J failed to address the totality of matters relied on by the applicant (circumstances of departure, continued residence in New Zealand, cause and effect of delay on alternative resolutions, age at relevant times, present personal circumstances) in deciding whether surrender would be unjust or oppressive
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because the Court identified arguable errors of law in the High Court judge's application of s 8(1)(c): specifically potential misapplication of the relevance of alleged complicity in delay absent required nexus and failure to assess the totality of circumstances relevant to whether surrender would be unjust or oppressive.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal granted under ss 68 and 69 of the Extradition Act 1999
- Leave confined to the specified questions of law set out in the judgment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CURTIS v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA [2018] NZCA 22 [26 February 2018]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA234/2017[2018] NZCA 22BETWEEN JASON LEONARD CURTISApplicantAND COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIARespondentHearing: 19 February 2018Court: Winkelmann, Asher and Clifford JJCounsel: D P Hoskin and C Liang for ApplicantK E Hogan for RespondentJudgment: 26 February 2018 at 3 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is granted.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Winkelmann J)[1] Leave to appeal is granted, under ss 68 and 69 of the Extradition Act 1999, inrespect of the following questions of law:1Did Lang J err in his interpretation and application of s 8(1)(c) of theExtradition Act 1999:(a) In weighing as relevant to the issue of whether ordering the surrenderof Mr Curtis would be unjust or oppressive, asserted complicity on the1 Curtis v Commonwealth of Australia [2017] NZHC 624.part of Mr Curtis in delay in the extradition proceedings in light of theabsence (or otherwise) of connection between Mr Curtis' conduct andthat delay, Mr Curtis' age when he left Australia and othercircumstances relevant to that delay; and(b) In failing to address the totality of the matters raised for Mr Curtis asestablishing that it would be unjust or oppressive to surrender him tothe Australian authorities, and in particular the totality of thecircumstances of his departure from Australia, continued residence inNew Zealand, the delay in the extradition proceedings (including thecause of that delay), the effect of that delay on Mr Curtis' opportunityfor an alternative resolution of his alleged offending, Mr Curtis' agewhen relevant events took place and his present personalcircumstances.Solicitors:Steindle Williams, Auckland for ApplicantCrown Solicitor, Manukau for Respondent