|
|
Allegations of Abuse
in Institutions |
|
|
|
|
The legal fraternity will closely
monitor a ruling today on whether two Catholic clergymen will be forced to
come back to New Zealand from Australia to face historical sexual-abuse
charges. Brother Rodger Moloney, 71, and
Father Raymond Garchow, 58, have been fighting extradition since their arrest
nearly three years ago on charges relating to when they taught at a St John
of God Order school in Halswell, Christchurch. Moloney faces 28 charges of
allegedly assaulting 12 boys between 1971 and 1977 at the Marylands
residential school for the disadvantaged. Garchow faces four charges, dating
from between 1971 and 1980. In August, a full bench of five
Federal Court judges in Sydney heard an appeal from New Zealand authorities
after the court controversially overturned an extradition order for the two
men. Justice Rodney Madgwick upset some
members of New Zealand's legal fraternity when he ruled in April that the men
would not get a fair trial if they were extradited. He said the pair would face an
"unjust or oppressive" hearing because of the age of the charges
and the fact that New Zealand judges were not required to point out the
difficulty of such cases to jurors, as they were in Australia. Auckland University associate
professor of law Scott Optican said the latest judgment would be closely
watched for its attitude towards New Zealand's criminal justice system,
rather than for setting precedents for rare extraditions from Australia. "When first this issue came
out there were people in New Zealand who felt that it didn't give enough
deference and respect to the criminal justice processes in this country that
make sure a fair trial is guaranteed," he said. "I think the real
issue in the case is going to be making sure that the judges in their
decision – no matter what their decision is – take a good, hard look at the
due process protections that exist in this country for ensuring the fair
trial of defendants in historical sex-abuse cases." Canterbury Criminal Bar
Association spokesman James Rapley said: "A large number of defence
lawyers do have very real concerns about our trials and trial processes when
it comes to sexual cases. "Those are issues as to
whether it's fair, whether things have gone too far in one direction – that
is, more pro-complainant than pro-accused – and whether there needs to be
some thought go into that." He believed the case could have
wider implications for future extradition attempts. Madgwick's judgment also raised
the issue that different rules applied to New Zealand extraditions than to
other countries. Because the rules allowed
Australian judges to look into the justice of a case in New Zealand, which
they could not do for other countries, it meant it was sometimes easier to
extradite to places like Zimbabwe than across the Tasman. |
