Extradition bungles in Australia

Little seeks explanation

WELLINGTON: New Zealand officials have agreed to extradite several alleged criminals to Australia, only for them to be refused entry or returned before facing trial.

Justice Minister Andrew Little wants an explanation.

During the past 18 months, there have been at least five cases where New Zealand agreed to extradite people to face criminal charges, only for Australia to refuse entry or send them back before the completion of court trials, Mr Little said yesterday.

The charges included sexual and violent offending, such as grievous bodily harm.

In one case, Australian police applied for someone previously deported for criminal offences to return to face new charges.

Australian officials then refused the visa for extradition and the man has now escaped trial altogether.

In another case, Australian authorities decided the visa usually used for extradition cases was not needed because the man was eligible for a different visa.

He was sent to Australia where that visa was promptly cancelled and he was detained in an immigration detention centre, where he remains without having faced trial.

Mr Little said there seemed to be a disconnect between state authorities and the Federal authorities who dealt with visas and immigration issues.

He had raised it with the Australian High Commission and was awaiting a response from the Australian Government.

The matter risks becoming a further thorn in the New ZealandAustralia relationship.

New Zealand is already concerned about Australia’s immigration policy and Mr Little said the new problem appeared to relate to changes made to the Migration Act in late 2014 under which noncitizens are deported if sentenced to more than 12 months for crimes or if they are considered ‘‘a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community’’.

He described it as ‘‘changed immigration laws that sees them deporting New Zealanders on, I would say, flimsy grounds and now managing extraditees in ways they haven’t been dealt with before’’.

There is a simplified process for extradition between New Zealand and Australia.

‘‘There have been a number of cases involving New Zealanders that haven’t followed the usual pattern that we would expect to follow for people extradited to Australia to face charges.

‘‘There appears to be . . . a mismatch between what state authorities are trying to do and the way Federal authorities are managing their immigration laws that apply to, in this case, alleged offenders who are facing criminal charges back in Australia.

‘‘And we just need some clarity about what the rules are.’’

A spokesman from Australia’s Department of Home Affairs said in a statement Australia ‘‘greatly appreciates’’ the assistance New Zealand provided.

The statement did not directly address the issues in the cases Mr Little was concerned about, but said since July last year, no New Zealander extradited to Australia with a criminal justice entry visa had been removed before the end of criminal proceedings.

The issue came to Mr Little’s attention when he considered the case of a refugee in New Zealand who Australia wants to extradite to face charges over a peoplesmuggling venture which resulted in the deaths of 353 asylum seekers in 2001.

The Supreme Court last year ruled Mr Little must personally decide whether to extradite Maythem Kamil Radhi, charged by Australia in 2010 for alleged involvement in offences relating to people smuggling.

Mr Little said he was waiting for advice on that case and did not know how long a decision could take, but Mr Radhi was entitled to know what conditions would apply to any extradition.

It could be a political headache for Mr Little, whose options include refusing extradition, meaning Mr Radhi escapes trial; extraditing him regardless of his fate; securing an assurance from Australia about Mr Radhi’s future; or agreeing to a special visa to allow Mr Radhi to return even if he was convicted for people smuggling.

Mr Radhi is an Iraqi refugee who has a residence visa but not citizenship in New Zealand. His wife and three children are citizens.

Mr Radhi was accepted as a refugee in New Zealand in 2009. Australia tracked him down and sought to extradite him in 2010.

The court said, if convicted, Mr Radhi’s New Zealand visa would lapse and Australia’s policies would likely mean he was put into an immigration detention centre as soon as his sentence ended with nowhere to deport him to.

The court said a possible solution was for the Immigration Minister to grant Mr Radhi a visa in advance that would allow him to return to New Zealand even if he was convicted and served time. — NZME

❛ . . . we just need some clarity about what the rules are

Andrew Little