|
|
Allegations of Abuse
in Institutions |
|
|
|
|
New Zealand authorities say an
Australian federal court judge erred in ruling against the extradition of two
Catholic clergymen whom police accuse of sexually abusing boys at a
Christchurch school in the 1970s. Justice Rodney Madgwick ruled in
April that it would be "unjust and oppressive" to extradite Brother
Rodger Moloney, 71, and Father Raymond Garchow, 59, to New Zealand to face
charges. Christchurch police want the St
John of God order clergymen in court to face allegations they sexually abused
pupils at the former Marylands school, which mainly catered for intellectually
impaired boys. Moloney faces 28 charges of
abusing 12 boys and Garchow four charges during the time teaching at the
school. Both have lived for some years in Sydney and have been fighting
extradition since their arrest in December 2003. New Zealand's solicitor-general
and the New South Wales director of public prosecutions endorsed a decision
by Crown solicitors in Christchurch to appeal Justice Madgwick's decision,
which was a reversal of an earlier Local Court ruling that the men should be
surrendered to New Zealand. Five justices – the full bench of
the Federal Court – heard the appeal yesterday, reserving their decision. Justice Madgwick had ruled that
the differences in the New Zealand and Australian legal systems and the
length of time since the alleged offences would make it difficult for the men
to receive a fair trial. Appearing for the New Zealand
authorities, Wendy Abraham, QC, of Adelaide, said his decision was erroneous.
It was impossible for an
Australian court to judge what prejudice because of delay might occur towards
an accused wanted in New Zealand without hearing all the evidence, she said. "It is for the New Zealand
courts on the evidence before them to decide whether an accused would get a
fair trial," she said. Appearing for the two men, Paul
Byrne said Justice Madgwick's decision should be upheld. Taking into account, the age of
the men, the breadth of dates for individual charges – ranging from 25 to 35
years ago – and that a significant number of witnesses had died, there was
presumptive prejudice against the pair. "There is also a significant
measure of actual prejudice." Much of yesterday's hearing was
taken up with legal argument about previous extradition cases and the
differences between the legislation of Australia and New Zealand. The men have been fighting
extradition since their arrest in December 2003. A Local Court magistrate ruled
early last year that they should be sent to New Zealand, but the men's
lawyers then went to the Federal Court asking Justice Madgwick to review the
case. He took a year to release his
decision. The St John of God order has paid
for the men's court cases. The Local Court ruled an
82-year-old fellow brother did not have to return to New Zealand to face
similar charges because of his diminishing mental capacity. |
