Leiataua v New Zealand Crown Law Office [2020] WSDC 7 (18 March 2020)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
Leiataua v New Zealand Crown Law Office [2020] WSDC 7

Case name:	Leiataua v New Zealand Crown Law Office
Citation:	[2020] WSDC 7
Decision date:	18 March 2020
Parties:	TULISI LEIATAUA v NEW ZEALAND CROWN LAW OFFICE for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND
Hearing date(s):	18 March 2020
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT
Place of delivery:	Mulinuu
Judge(s):	JUDGE ATOA SAAGA
On appeal from:
Order:	Bail application is hereby denied.
Representation:	T Peniamina for Applicant
	L K Koria for Respondent
Catchwords:	bail application – extradition
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Extradition Act 1974 s9, S10
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINU’U

BETWEEN:

TULISI LEIATAUA
Applicant

AND:

NEW ZEALAND CROWN LAW OFFICE for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND
Respondent

Counsels:
T Peniamina for Applicant
L K Koria for Respondent

Hearing: 18 March 2020
Decision: 18 March 2020

DECISION OF JUDGE SAAGA

BACKGROUND

2. The Defendant was committed to custody on 28^th February 2020 pursuant to an order issued by this Court to await Extradition pursuant to Section 9(4) of the Extradition Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’”).
3. The Court also ordered that the Defendant shall not be extradited until after the expiration of 15 days commencing from the date of the order for his committal^[1].
4. The Court also fulfilled its obligation under Section 10(1) of the Act, to inform the person in ordinary language of the person’s right of action in the Supreme Court for redress of a contravention of the person’s right to personal liberty or a review of the order of committal.
5. The Court also ordered the Registrar of the Court to advise the Minister of Justice and Courts Administration of the Court’s order of Committal.

BAIL APPLICATION

6. An application for bail was filed by the Defendant on the 17^th March 2020 and heard on Wednesday 18^th March 2020 at 11.00am. The Application is filed pursuant to Section 9(2) of the Act.
7. The reasons for the application is to allow the Defendant an opportunity to lodge an application with the National Provident Fund for the withdrawal of his contribution to assist his elderly mother in looking after his two young children who are his dependents. The two children are of the ages of 8 and 6 years old.

DISCUSSION

8. Section 9(2) of the Act is in respect of the jurisdiction and powers of the Court of Committal whilst presiding over proceedings for committal.
9. This Court has already issued an order for the committal of the Defendant to extradition on the 28^th February 2020. This provision is no longer applicable as the Court has already issued an order for committal.
10. The proper process under the Act would be for the Applicant to file an action in the Supreme Court for a redress of a contravention of his or her personal liberty or for the review of the order of committal.^[2]
11. The Applicant has not filed an action in the Supreme Court and has instead filed a bail application in this Court.
12. The Court of Committal does not have the jurisdiction to review its own order of committal.

CONCLUSION

13. Bail application is hereby denied.

JUDGE ATOA - SAAGA

---

^[1] Section 10(2) of the Extradition Act 1974
^[2] Section 10 of the Extradition Act 1974