New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Surrender eligibility

Legal area

Court

10 Mar 2023

TAMAINU v R [2023] NZHC 471

Citation

[2023] NZHC 471
Court

High Court

Appellant had received the extradition application and supporting documents in September 2022, had an opportunity to seek and obtain representation but elected to self-represent, was given an opportunity to be heard at the District Court hearing, and no demonstrable breach of s27 NZBORA or error of law was established; therefore the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the District Court's determination that the appellant was eligible for surrender.
1 May 2019

CURTIS v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA [2019] NZCA 126

Citation

[2019] NZCA 126
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court had jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules to award costs in these extradition and related judicial review proceedings; a legally aided appellant has incurred a recoverable liability to the Legal Services Commissioner under the Legal Services Act 2011 and may recover costs paid by the Commissioner; public interest and comity did not outweigh the ordinary rule that the unsuccessful party pay costs; quantum limited to the lesser of Court of Appeal scale costs and the amount paid by Legal Services for the appeal.
19 Nov 2018

RAYMOND JOSEPH TUKAKI v THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA [2018] NZSC 109 [19 November 2018]

Citation

[2018] NZSC 109
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show a sufficient factual or legal basis to alter the established high threshold for "oppressive", the Court of Appeal had carefully analysed the issues and correctly found no compelling or extraordinary circumstances under s48(4)(a)(ii), and there was no necessity in the interests of justice to hear the proposed appeal.
23 Mar 2016

MAILLEY v DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2016] NZCA 83

Citation

[2016] NZCA 83
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the remit was clear and s48(4)(a)(ii) is confined to compelling or extraordinary circumstances of the person (age, health and closely related personal matters); the court is a gatekeeper and must not expand the remit to consider general 'circumstances of the case' or s8 factors which are for the Minister; the appellant's medical and family circumstances did not meet the high threshold of compelling or extraordinary and referral was not required, so the appeal is dismissed.
23 Apr 2015

KYUNG YUP KIM v THE PRISON MANAGER, MOUNT EDEN CORRECTIONS FACILITY [2015] NZSC 47

Citation

[2015] NZSC 47
Court

Supreme Court

The writ of habeas corpus could not succeed because, following the determination of eligibility for surrender under s 24 and the appellant's abandonment of his appeal, the District Court's issuance of a s 26(1) warrant was mandatory and therefore the appellant's detention under that warrant was lawful; there was no issue of general or public importance nor a substantial miscarriage of justice warranting leave to appeal.

New Zealand Case Law

TAMAINU v R [2023] NZHC 471

CURTIS v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA [2019] NZCA 126

RAYMOND JOSEPH TUKAKI v THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA [2018] NZSC 109 [19 November 2018]

MAILLEY v DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2016] NZCA 83

KYUNG YUP KIM v THE PRISON MANAGER, MOUNT EDEN CORRECTIONS FACILITY [2015] NZSC 47