Refugee’s role in mass drowning before court

THE Court of Appeal has to decide if a refugee linked to a notorious mass drowning of asylum-seekers off Indonesia can be extradited to Australia to face charges there.

Maythem Kamil Radhi came to New Zealand as a refugee in 2009, but Australian authorities say that in 2001, he was in Indonesia and helped with preparations for more than 400 asylum-seekers to board a fishing boat not quite 20 metres long.

The unnamed boat sank in October 2001 in rough seas off Indonesia. More than 350 people drowned.

The drownings happened during an Australian election campaign and became an election issue. A memorial to the 353 victims has been erected in Canberra.

In February 2011, a Brisbane court issued a warrant for Iraq-born Radhi and police arrested him at his Auckland home in July 2011. He has been free on bail since.

The warrant alleges that he helped facilitate the proposed entry of asylum-seekers into Australia, regardless of whether they had the lawful right to go there.

Most were thought to be of Middle Eastern origin and Radhi is alleged to have been present during fare negotiations, controlling the movements and activities of passengers while they were in Indonesia, and helping them board the boat.

A District Court judge in Auckland decided in early 2012 that Radhi was eligible to be surrendered to Australian authorities. But a year later that decision was overturned in the High Court.

Police, on behalf of the Australian authorities, appealed against that decision, and the Court of Appeal yesterday reserved its ruling. Maythem Kamil Radhi

To be extradited, the offence Radhi is alleged to have committed would need to have an equivalent in New Zealand law.

A complicating factor is that whatever he allegedly did took place in Indonesia, and the court may have to consider whether New Zealand law could ‘‘reach’’ to cover acts outside New Zealand.

For extradition purposes, the alleged offence needs to carry a jail term of at least 12 months.

At the time, the nearest New Zealand equivalent offence had a three-month term, but included the words ‘‘for each person in respect of whom the offence is committed’’.

Even if the Court of Appeal finds Radhi is eligible for extradition, that does not end the process. The case would go back to the District Court and perhaps the immigration minister.

Two people alleged to be Radhi’s cooffenders are already serving jail terms in Australia and Egypt.