Extradition — endorsement of arrest warrant — eligibility for surrender — whether the case should be referred to the Minister — R v Schaapveld [2016] NZDC 15560 — Extradition Act 1999, ss 7, 8, 41, 45, 46, 48, part 4. The Commonwealth of Australia sought to extradite the defendant to face sexual offending charges against his step-daughter. The Court had previously endorsed the arrest warrant, pursuant to s 41 of the Extradition Act (the Act); in this hearing it had to determine if the defendant was eligible for surrender to Australia, and to decide whether to refer the case to the Minister. There was no dispute that according to the Act the defendant was an extraditable person, and the offences were also extraditable; the issue was whether there were either mandatory or discretionary restrictions on his extradition, under ss 7 and 8 respectively. The defendant argued that he had already been convicted and punished in New Zealand for the offending, so to deport him to Australia would amount to double punishment (a mandatory restriction on surrender according to s 7). Further, the attempts to extradite him were not in good faith, and it would be unjust and oppressive for the Court to surrender him (a discretionary restriction on surrender according to s 8). He also submitted that he suffered from depression as the result of a head injury, and if he was deported to Australia he would commit suicide (also a discretionary restriction). The Court found that although the defendant had been convicted in New Zealand for offending against the same victim, the Court did not uplift the sentence to take account of offending in Australia. In fact the Court only punished the defendant for offending that had occurred in New Zealand, not for the earlier offending in Australia. Also there was no reason to believe that the extradition application was not in good faith, and expert witness evidence had suggested that the defendant's suicide threat was not credible and amounted to an attempt to hold the Court to ransom. Finally, the Court found that there was no reason to refer the case to the Minister. The Court ordered that the defendant be surrendered for extradition. Judgment Date: 22 January 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *