From Assange to Zentai: interpretative conjunctions between international and domestic extradition law in Australia and the United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

As a process of formal surrender by one country to another of a person accused or convicted of an offence, extradition has both an international and a domestic operation. This article critically examines the manner in which superior courts in the United Kingdom and Australia determine the domestic and international meaning of words such as ‘accused’, and resolve discrepancies between those meanings, when interpreting and applying extradition treaties and the legislation by which extradition treaties are given domestic effect. It is argued that the difference in interpretative approach between the two jurisdictions is a result of the different backgrounds against which particular cases have arisen, as well as the Australian judicial departure from the position that incorporated extradition treaties should be interpreted by reference to public international law principles of treaty interpretation. However, neither jurisdiction has yet sufficiently resolved how the meaning of a word in an extradition treaty is to be applied as between the substantive law and procedure of different countries.

KEYWORDS:

• Extradition
• statutory interpretation
• treaty interpretation
• accused
• Assange
• Zentai

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this article was submitted in partial completion of an LLB at the University of Western Australia. This article is dedicated to the late Dr Peter Johnston, whose extraordinary benevolence and intellect made possible its creation. With thanks to the Hon Justice James Edelman and my family.

Notes

1 Ivan Shearer, Extradition in International Law (Manchester University Press 1971) 21; Edmund Aughterson, Extradition: Australian Law and Procedure (The Law Book Company Ltd 1995) 2; Mahmoud Bassiouni, International Extradition: United States Law and Practice (6th edn, OUP 2014) 2.

2 Riley v Commonwealth (1985) 159 CLR 1, 15 (High Court of Australia (HCA)) (Deane J); see also Re Bolton; ex p Beane (1987) 162 CLR 514 (HCA); Zoeller v Federal Republic of Germany (1989) 23 FCR 282 (Federal Court of Australia (FCA)) 297; Todhunter v United States of America (1995) 57 FCR 70 (FCA) 77. See also Anton Katz, ‘The Incorporation of Extradition Agreements’ (2003) 16 South African Journal of Criminal Justice 311, 312. The Commonwealth Law Reports (CLR) are the authorised reports of the High Court of Australia. References to FCA and FCR are to the neutral citation and the authorised reports, respectively, of the Federal Court of Australia.

3 Francis Piggott, Extradition (Kelly & Walsh 1910) 1–15.

4 William Magnuson, ‘The Domestic Politics of International Extradition’ (2012) 52 Virginia Journal of International Law 839, 869; Arvinder Sambei and John R W D Jones, Extradition Law Handbook (OUP 2005) 7.

5 Maloney v The Queen [2013] HCA 28 [175] (Kiefel J), citing Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 2 AC 426 (House of Lords (HL)) [4] (Lord Bingham).

6 Ned Aughterson, ‘The Extradition Process: An Unreviewable Executive Discretion?’ (2005) 24 Australian Year Book of International Law 13.

7 In the UK, the so-called ‘prima facie case requirement’ has been abolished in relation to the parties to the Framework Decision: see Extradition Act 2003 (UK) pt 1. In Australia, the bilateral extradition treaties to which Australia is a party no longer require the requesting state to make out a prima facie case for the guilt of the requested person. The only current exception is Australia's extradition treaty with Israel: see Treaty between Australia and the State of Israel concerning Extradition, Australia–Israel, signed 4 December 1975, [1976] ATS 2 (entered into force 3 January 1976) art XI; see also Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) s 11(5). For a discussion of the human rights aspects of extradition law interpretation, see Holly Cullen and Bethia Burgess, ‘Extradition from A to Z: Assange, Zentai and the Challenge of Interpreting International Obligations’ (2015) 39 University of Western Australia Law Review 208.

8 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States [2002] OJ L190/1 (Framework Decision), art 6.

9 [2012] UKSC 22 (United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC)).

10 See Framework Decision (n 8) art 6.

11 See the Extradition Act 2003 (UK) s 2(2), 66(2).

12 Assange (n 9) 476.

13 Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, and Lord Dyson, Baroness Hale and Lord Mance dissenting.

14 Assange (n 9) [99] (Lord Phillips), [121] (Lord Dyson).

15 ibid [10] (Lord Phillips), [124] (Lord Dyson).

16 ibid [76] (Lord Phillips), [127] (Lord Dyson), [234] (Lord Mance).

17 ibid [10] (Lord Phillips), [124] (Lord Dyson).

18 ibid [76] (Lord Phillips).

19 ibid [109], [131] (Lord Kerr).

20 ibid [10]–[13] (Lord Phillips).

21 [2012] HCA 28 (Zentai).

22 O’Connor v Zentai (2011) 195 FCR 515 (FCA).

23 Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of Hungary, Australia–Hungary, signed 25 October 1995, [1997] ATS 13 (entered into force 15 April 2007) art 1 (Australia–Hungary Treaty).

24 Extradition (Republic of Hungary) Regulations 1997 (Cth) sch 1.

25 Zentai (n 21) [65] (Gummow, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

26 ibid [30] (French CJ), [70] (Gummow, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

27 ibid [72] (Gummow, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

28 Australia–Hungary Treaty, art 1.

29 Zentai (n 21) [65] (Gummow, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

30 ibid.

31 ibid [78]–[84].

32 ibid [76].

33 See I M Sinclair, ‘The Principles of Treaty Implementation in the English Courts’ (1963) 12 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 508, 549.

34 Assange (n 9) [10] (Lord Phillips), [112] (Lord Kerr), [121] (Lord Dyson), [201] (Lord Mance).

35 Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2005] UKHL 67 [8] (Lord Bingham).

36 See generally Mirielle Delmas-Marty, ‘Towards an Integrated European Criminal Law’ (2004–2005) 7 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 17, 22–23; Joachim Vogel, ‘The European Integrated Criminal Justice System and Its Constitutional Framework’ (2005) 12 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 125, 132.

37 Assange (n 9) [79] (Lord Phillips). Limitations on the extent to which Member States' subsequent practice is determinative are discussed below at C.4.

38 Cando Armas (n 35) [24] (Lord Hope).

39 [2000] FCA 1204, affirmed (2001) 108 FCR 311, [108].

40 ibid [126].

41 ibid; Todhunter (n 2) 74 (Black CJ, Gummow and Lindgren JJ).

42 Cabal (n 39) [132] (French J); Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed, Thomson Reuters 2009).

43 Commonwealth v Riley (1984) 5 FCR 8 (FCA) 14 (considering an equivalent provision in earlier legislation); Re Bolton (n 2); Zoeller (n 2) 304; Todhunter (n 2); Bollag v A-G (Cth) (1997) 79 FCR 198, 215; Zentai (n 21) [14]–[15] (French CJ). See generally Polites v Commonwealth (1945) 70 CLR 60 (HCA) 81 (Williams J).

44 Bollag (n 43); see also Zentai (n 21) [14] (French CJ).

45 Cabal (n 39) [126] (French J).

46 Aughterson (n 6) 10, 27; cf O’Connor v Adamas (2013) 210 FCR 364 (FCA) 390 [183] (Barker J).

47 See Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) s 11(6); Aughterson (n 6) 28.

48 Zentai (n 21) [22] (in the context of the dual criminality requirement), citing Riley (n 2) 12 (Gibbs CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ), 14 (Brennan J and Deane J agreeing); Truong v The Queen [2004] HCA 10 [11] (Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Heydon JJ).

49 Queensland v Commonwealth (1989) 167 CLR 232 (HCA) 238–240; Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168 (HCA) 204; Yager v The Queen (1977) 139 CLR 28 (HCA) 43–44; Polites (n 43) 69.

50 Cabal (n 39) [127].

51 ibid [132].

52 Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) s 3(c).

53 Cabal (n 39) [128].

54 Zentai (n 21) [5] (French CJ); Federal Republic of Germany v Parker (1998) 84 FCR 323 (FCA) 328 (Ryan, Enfield and Foster JJ); cf Oates v A-G (Cth) [2001] FCA 84 [16] (Lindgren J). See also Peter Johnston, ‘The Incorporation of Human Rights Fair Trial Standards into Australian Extradition Law’ (2014) 76 AIAL Forum 20, 23.

55 Zentai v Republic of Hungary [2009] FCA 284 [24] (Gilmour J).

56 Todhunter (n 2) 76; Papazoglou v Republic of the Philippines (1997) 74 FCR 108 (FCA) 113.

57 Todhunter (n 2) 76; see, eg, Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) s 11(6).

58 D C Pearce and R S Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (6th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths 2006) 38; see, eg, Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225 (HCA) 230–31 (Brennan CJ); Shipping Corporation of India v Gamlen Chemical Co (A/Asia) Pty Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 142 (HCA) 159 (Mason and Wilson JJ, Gibbs and Aiken JJ agreeing); Koowarta (n 49) 265 (Brennan J); Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 (HCA) 222; Thiel v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 171 CLR 338 (HCA) 356; De L v Director-General, New South Wales Department of Community Services (1996) 187 CLR 640 (HCA) 675–76 (Kirby J); Graham Corney, ‘Mutant Stare Decisis: The Interpretation of Statutes which Incorporate International Treaties into Australian Law’ (1994–1995) 18 University of Queensland Law Journal 50, 51.

59 ibid.

60 In the extradition context, see O’Connor v Zentai (2011) 195 FCR 515 (FCA) 518–19, citing Tasmania (n 58) 261 (Deane J); Belgium v Postlethwaite [1988] AC 924 (HL) 947. See also R v Governor of Pentonville Prison; ex p Ecke (1981) 73 Cr App R 223 (Divisional Court (DC)) 227 (Lord Widgery); James Buchanan &Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding and Shipping (UK) Ltd [1978] AC 141 (HL) 152; Shipping Corporation of India (n 58) 159.

61 Applicant A (n 58) 231 (Brennan CJ).

62 Gerhardy v Brown (1985) 159 CLR 70 (HCA) 98; Postlethwaite (n 60) 947, citing Re Arton (No 2) [1896] 1 QB 509 (Queen's Bench Division (QBD)) 517.

63 Aughterson (n 6) 13.

64 See eg Commonwealth Minister for Justice v Adamas [2013] HCA 59 (Adamas); see generally Shaheed Fatima, ‘Using International Law in Domestic Courts—Part 1: Domesticated Treaties' [2003] Judicial Review 81.

65 Adamas (n 64).

66 Australia–Hungary Treaty art 9(2)(b).

67 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force on 27 January 1980).

68 Adamas (n 64) [33].

69 ibid [36].

70 See Johnston (n 54).

71 Adamas (n 64) [32].

72 This issue is discussed further below at D.2.

73 Zentai (n 21).

74 ibid.

75 ibid [65] (Gummow, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

76 ibid, cf Vasiljkovic v Commonwealth (2006) [2006] HCA 40 [34], [115]. As Matthew Stubbs observes, ‘[i]t is unclear how this very narrow statement of purpose advances understanding of the text’: Matthew Stubbs, ‘Zentai and the Troubles of Extradition’ (2013) 39 Monash University Law Review 894, 901.

77 Zentai (n 21) [20] French CJ).

78 ibid [36] (French CJ); see also [65] (Gummow, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

79 Maloney (n 5) [15] (French CJ); see also Zentai (n 21) [36] (French CJ), [65] (Gummow, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

80 Zentai (n 21) [36] (French CJ), [65] (Gummow, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ). The strong municipal and international principle of non-retrospectivity also influenced the premium placed on a more literal domestic construction of art 2.5(a): see Zentai (n 21) [60], [72] (Gummow, Heydon, Crennan, Keifel and Bell JJ); Melanie O’Brien, ‘Minister for Home Affairs of the Commonwealth v Zentai’ (2013) 20 Australian International Law Journal 189. It should be noted that, arguably, the prohibition on retrospective criminal laws did not apply in the case of Mr Zentai: see Matthew Stubbs (n 76) 897–909.

81 Aughterson (n 6) 27–8.

82 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 (HCA) [27] (Mason CJ and Deane J); Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v VFAD [2002] FCAFC 390 (FCA) [114] (Black CJ, Sundberg and Weinberg JJ); Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Al Masri [2003] FCAFC 70 (FCA) [138], [155].

83 Polites (n 43) 68–69 (Latham CJ), 77 (Dixon J), 81 (Williams J); Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1 (HCA) 38 (Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ); Teoh (n 82) [27] (Mason CJ and Deane J); A-G (WA) v Marquet (2003) [2003] HCA 67 [172]–[186]; Coleman v Power [2004] HCA 39 [240] (Kirby J); SZGIZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 71 (FCA) [59].

84 Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352 (1983); see also Bassiouni (n 1) 139.

85 See, eg, Applicant A (n 58) 245–46 (Dawson J), 259–63 (McHugh J), 280–83 (Gummow J), 296 (Kirby J).

86 Assange (n 9) [61], [85] (Lord Phillips), [113] (Lord Kerr).

87 [2013] UKSC 71.

88 ibid [23]–[48]. In Assange it was assumed that the VCLT applied, and a challenge to its applicability was rejected as late. For a comparison of Assange and Bucnys, see Veronika Fikfak, ‘The Meaning of Judicial Authority After Assange’ (2015) 131 Law Quarterly Review 223, 223–25.

89 See especially Khera v Germany [2015] EWHC 1504 (Admin) (England and Wales High Court, Administrative Court) [5]; R v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2014] EWHC 1475 (Admin) [90] (Green J); Binder v Germany [2014] EWHC 133 (Admin) (Williams J).

90 While perhaps leaving room for some ‘national margin of appreciation’ in the fact that it does not impose identical rules in every state: see Delmas-Marty (n 36) 23. On mutual recognition and harmonisation under the Framework Decision, see for example, Susie Alegre and Marisa Leaf, ‘Mutual Recognition in European Judicial Cooperation: A Step Too Soon? Case Study—The European Arrest Warrant’ (2004) 10 European Law Journal 200; Milena Lazarevic, ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of the Principles of Harmonisation and of Mutual Recognition as a Basis for Progress in Creating a European Judicial Area’ (2006) 8 Review of European Law 25; Steve Peers, ‘Mutual Recognition and Criminal Law in the European Union: Has the Council Got It Wrong?’ (2004) 41 Common Market Law Review 5.

91 Bucnys (n 87) [66].

92 Assange (n 9) [181]–[192] (Baroness Hale).

93 Wiest v DPP (1988) 23 FCR 472 (FCA) 519 (Gummow J, Sheppard and Burhett JJ agreeing); Zoeller (n 2) 294; O'Donoghue v Ireland [2009] FCAFC 184 (FCA) [39]–[41].

94 Kainhofer v DPP (1995) 185 CLR 528 (HCA) 533 (Brennan CJ, Dawson and McHugh JJ); Zentai v O’Connor (No 3) (2010) 187 FCR 495 (FCA) 535 [151] (McKerracher J).

95 Kainhofer (n 94) 559–60 [63] (Gummow J) (emphasis added); Cabal (n 39) [132] (French J).

96 Cabal (n 39) [129] (French J).

97 See O'Donoghue (n 93) [39]–[41]; Zentai v O’Connor (No 3) (2010) 187 FCR 495 (FCA) [151] (McKerracher J); Shipping Corporation of India (n 58) 159 (Mason and Wilson JJ), citing James Buchanan (n 60) 152 (Lord Wilberforce); see also Applicant A (n 58) 240 (Dawson J); Koowarta (n 49).

98 Cabal (n 39) [131].

99 While this issue was raised in the lower court proceedings in both Assange and Zentai, curiously, it was not agitated at the final appellate stage in either case.

100 Kainhofer (n 94).

101 As required by s 6(a)(i) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth); see also ss 12, 16 and 19.

102 Kainhofer (n 94) 564 (emphasis added).

103 ibid.

104 ibid 563; see also O’Connor v Zentai (2011) 195 FCR 515 (FCA) [51].

105 Re Ismail [1999] 1 AC 320 (HL) 326–27 (emphasis added).

106 See, eg, Vey v Public Prosecutor of Montluçon [2006] EWHC 760 (Admin); Asztaslos v Hungary [2010] EWHC 237 (Admin); Belgium v Bartlett [2010] EWHC 1390 (Admin); Johnson v France [2009] EWHC 2830 (Admin); Trenk v Czech Republic [2009] EWHC 1132 (Admin); R (on the application of McGoldrick) v Hungary [2009] EWHC 2816 (Admin).

107 Interestingly, the Framework Decision itself contains an indirect requirement that the subject be ‘wanted for prosecution or punishment’: see recital 12; see also R (on the application of McGoldrick) (n 106) [25] (Collins J).

108 Extradition Act 2003 (UK) ss 2(2), 2(3)(a); Cando Armas (n 35) [43], [48] (Lord Hope), [54] (Lord Scott); Asztaslos (n 106) [16]–[19] (Aiken LJ).

109 Vey (n 106) [55], [59] (Moses LJ).

110 Linhart v Elms (1988) 81 ALR 557 (FCA) 571 (emphasis added).

111 Steve Peers, ‘Mutual Recognition and Criminal Law in the European Union: Has the Council Got It Wrong?’ (2004) 41 Common Market Law Review 5, 35.

112 Kainhofer (n 94) 555 (Gummow J).

113 ibid 557–59 (Gummow J); Narain v DPP (1987) 15 FCR 411 (FCA) 421; Fraser v The Queen [No 2] (1985) 1 NSWLR 680 (New South Wales Court of Appeal (NSWCA)) 689–90; Re Ismail (n 105) 326–27 (Lord Steyn).

114 Kainhofer (n 94) 555 (Gummow J); Stirland v DPP [1944] AC 315 (HL) 323–24.

115 Kainhofer (n 94) 569.

116 ibid 557; Narain (n 113) 421–22 (Wilcox and Jackson JJ).

117 Re Ismail (n 105) 327.

118 Australia–Hungary Treaty art 1.

119 Kainhofer v DPP [1994] FCA 1328 [46].

120 ibid (emphasis added).

121 [2008] FCA 781 [21] (Gyles J), affirmed [2008] FCA 1133 (Flick J).

122 Tervonen v Minister for Justice and Customs (No 2) [2007] FCA 1684 [33]–[42].

123 ibid [38]–[42].

124 (2011) 195 FCR 515 (FCA) [142].

125 See Kainhofer (n 94) 538–39 (Brennan CJ, Dawson and McHugh JJ, Toohey J agreeing). Toohey J expressed concern that the Act affords ‘little scope for judicial review of the question whether a person is an extraditable person’: at 541. See generally Aughterson (n 6).

126 Zentai (2011) 195 FCR 515 (FCA) [142] (Jessup J), [52]–[54] (Besanko J).

127 See, eg, Von Arnim v Federal Republic of Germany (2002) 125 FCR 324 (FCA) 326–27.

128 Gavan Griffith and Claire Harris, ‘Recent Developments in the Law of Extradition’ (2005) 6 Melbourne Journal of International Law 33, 53.

129 See, eg, Matthew Murchison, ‘Extradition's Paradox: Duty, Discretion, and Rights in the World of Non-Inquiry’ (2007) 43 Stanford Journal of International Law 295, 296.

130 Cando Armas (n 35) [24].

131 Shearer (n 1) 55.

132 Johnston (n 54).

133 See for example, Tervonen v Finland [2008] FCA 781 [21], affirmed [2008] FCA 1133.

134 Christopher Birch, ‘Mill, Frege and the High Court: The Connotation/Denotation Distinction in Constitutional Interpretation’ (2003) 23 Australian Bar Review 296, 298.

135 ibid 299.

136 (2011) 195 FCR 515 (FCA).

137 ibid [142].

138 See for example, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (Blackwell 1953) 66–7.

139 Applicant A (n 58) 308 (Kirby J). This case involved a somewhat similar problem of determining whether Chinese parents who had flouted China's one-child policy were part of a ‘social group’ under refugee law.

140 ibid.

141 See Matthew Stubbs, ‘From Foreign Circumstances to First Instance Considerations: Extrinsic Material and the Law of Statutory Interpretation’ (2006) 34 Federal Law Review 103, 105.

142 Transcript of Proceedings, DPP v Kainhofer (High Court of Australia, B12/1995, Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ, 21 June 1995) 71 (B W Walker SC).

143 Cando Armas (n 35); Vey (n 106) [39] (Moses LJ); Trenk (n 106) [17] (Davis J).

144 Bassiouni (n 1) 497; Assarsson v United States, 451 US 938 (1980); Dionysios Spinellis, ‘Extradition—Recent Developments in European Criminal Law’ (2006) 8 European Journal of Law Reform 223, 225.

145 Zentai (n 21) [31] (French CJ).

146 Bassiouni (n 1) 489–99.

147 See, eg, Kainhofer (n 94) 564 (Gummow J); Zentai (n 21).

148 Vasiljkovic (n 76) [34] (Gleeson CJ); see also Matthew Stubbs (n 76) 911–12.

149 Aughterson (n 6) 34.

150 De Bruyn v Republic of South Africa (1999) 96 FCR 290 (FCA) 295. See also, Timar v Republic of Hungary [1999] FCA 1518; Anne Warner La Forest, ‘The Balance Between Liberty and Comity in the Evidentiary Requirements Applicable to Extradition Proceedings' (2002–2003) 28 Queen's Law Journal 95, 172–73.

151 Cabal (n 39) [129] (French J); Mokbel v A-G (Cth) (2007) 162 FCR 278 (FCA) [13] (Gordon J).

152 Re Ismail (n 105) 326–27; Transcript of Proceedings, DPP v Kainhofer (High Court of Australia, B12/1995, Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ, 20 June 1995) 7.

153 Cabal (n 39) [134] (French J).

154 (2013) 210 FCR 364 (FCA).

155 ibid [183], citing Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427 (HCA) 437.

156 Timar v Republic of Hungry [1999] FCA 1518 [64] (Weinberg J) (emphasis added).

157 Shearer (n 1) 195.

158 ibid.

159 Adamas (n 64).