|
This page last
updated October 23 2006
October 19 2006 Accused appear in Christchurch Court
Two clergymen appeared in court in
Christchurch. They were granted
bailed, and the judge made an order that no images of the pair be published
until a further order is made. The men will reappear on November 2.
2006-1020
- The Press - Decisive move for fair trial
2006-1020 - NZ Herald - Court bans
images of clerics facing sex charges
2006-1020 - Dominion
Post - Clergymen bailed
2006-1019 - The Press -
Accused brothers appear in court
2006-1019 - NZ Herald -
Extradited clergymen bailed
2006-1019 - Newstalk ZB
14:08 - Clergymen's images suppressed
2006-1019 - Newstalk ZB
11:17 - Clergymen granted bail in Christchurch
2006-1019 - Radio NZ - 10:31 -
-Two Catholic clergy extradited from Australia granted bail
October 19 2006; Accused arrive in New Zealand
The pair arrive in New Zealand, accompanied on their
flight by their lawyer Greg Walsh. They maintain their innocence and intend
to defend the charges. Ken Clearwater expresses pleasure pair are in New
Zealand
2006-1019
- The Press - Pair arrive to face trial
2006-1019 - One News -
Extradited clergymen due in court
2006-1019 - Radio NZ -
05:16 - Extradited clergy due to appear in court
2006-1019 - Newstalk ZB -
05:08 - Clergymen arrive to face sex charges
Lawyer Greg Walsh
October 18 2006; Uncertainty over arrival of accused
Initial uncertainty over when pair will arrive in
New Zealand, and then confirmation that they will arrive later in day.
2006-1018
- The Press - Return date unclear for accused clergy
2006-1018 - NZ Herald - Secrecy
over return of clergymen to face sex charges
2006-1018 - Newstalk
ZB - Clergymen will appear in court tomorrow
|
PeterEllis.org.nz
October 17 2006
New Zealand Justice on Trial
Media Release
The Australian courts have
permitted extradition of two clergymen to New Zealand to face sex charges.
PeterEllis.org hopes that our justice system will heed Australian Justice
Madgwick, who raised serious concerns that the men may not receive a fair
trial in New Zealand, spokesperson Richard Christie says.
In particular
·
Will the two men receive separate trials from each other in New
Zealand? Joint trials would likely be regarded as unjust in Australia and
not occur.
·
Will the jury be given a strong warning by the judge as tothe very
real problems in meeting such old allegations? In Australia the accused
would have such a guarantee.
·
Will the two men face "representative charges"? Such
charges are not permitted in Australia, where Justice Madgwick quite
rightly pointed out: "How can a man defend himself if he doesn't know
when the alleged offence is supposed to have happened?
·
Will the jury be warned of the dangers associated with mass
allegation cases, including concoction or unconscious contamination of
complainant testimony? Many of the complainants were interviewed repeatedly
by the same psychiatrist and attended victim's group sessions.
·
Will the jury be warned that the reliability of the complainants'
evidence is hopelessly compromised by the tens of thousands of dollars
offered to anybody willing to claim that they were victims of abuse?
PeterEllis.org hopes that the
New Zealand Law Commission does not react to the extradition decision by
dismissing the concerns raised by Justice Madgwick about the New Zealand
justice system. The Commission could take the advice of Judith Ablett-Kerr
QC and seize the opportunity to examine the way Australia deals with the
issues, to see if we can improve our own system.
|
October 17 2006; Waiting for
extradition of accused
Initial expectation that pair will be extradited
immediately after appeal on 16th October.
2006-1017
- The Press - Clergy in sex case due today in Chch
2006-1017 - Stuff - Clergymen
likely to be extradited today
2006-1017 - NZ Herald -
Extradited clergymen could arrive in Christchurch today
2006-1017 - Dominion Post -
Pair to be extradited
2006-1017 - Radio NZ - No
extradition today
2006-1017 - One News -
Accused clergymen still in Aust
2006-1017 -
peterellis.org.nz - New Zealand Justice on Trial
October 16 2006; Appeal on extradition is lost
Pair lose appeal on extradition. The appeal is
short. The men's
counsel, Tim Gain, had 20 minutes to put his case, and the Commonwealth the
same amount in reply. Chief Justice Murray Gleeson and Justices William
Gummow and Dyson Heydon then adjourned for five minutes before dismissing the
application. "We are not persuaded that the interests of justice require
the granting of special leave to appeal to this court," Chief Justice
Gleeson said. Rodger Moloney faces 28
charges of abusing boys at Marylands, a school run by the St John of God
order. Raymond Garchow faces four charges. Police allege the offences were
committed between 1971 and 1980. The school closed in 1985.
2006-1016
- Stuff - Former clergymen lose appeal against extradition
2006-1016 - Radio NZ -
Priests lose fight to avoid extradition to NZ
2006-1016 - Radio NZ -
Catholic Justice
2006-1016 - One News -
Clergymen face extradition
2006-1016 - NZ Herald - Two
clergymen on way to NZ to face sex charges
October 13; High Court Appeal granted
High Court Appeal hearing was granted for 16
October. Chief
Justice Gleeson said two fellow High Court judges would hear their
application for special leave to appeal on Monday.
2006-1014
- Dominion Post - Hearing granted
2006-1013 - Stuff - Hearing
granted for extradition appeal
October 6 2006 Comments on Federal Court Decision
Justice
Catherine Branson (in judgment): "Both countries were aware of the
difficulties, although they may address them in different ways"
"The courts of both countries have exactly the same object, which is a
fair trial"
Scott Optican (Auckland
University lecturer): "The Federal Court made a correct call, I have no doubt that these
people are going to get a fair trial, or at least as fair trial as they'd get
in Australia. So extradition is warranted. The requirements of a fair trial
in New Zealand are exactly the same as they are in Australia. It is that
simple"
James Rapley (Canterbury Criminal Bar Association spokesman): I think the decision is the right one in
that our courts do strive to ensure that there's a fair trial
Brian Uttinger (Former Marylands
pupil): "Remember me? I'm not a little fella any more." Welcomed
decision;
Ken Clearwater (Male survivors of
Sex Abuse Trust): "Rapt",
John Prince (Male Survivors of
Sex Abuse Trust) "pleased that common sense has
prevailed"
2006-1006
- The Press - Clergy sent back for trial
2006-1006 - One News - Claims of
much more abuse
2006-1006 - NZ Herald - Path
cleared for clergy to face abuse charges
2006-1006 - Newstalk
ZB - 08:44 - Supporters of alleged victims welcome extradition
2006-1005 - Radio NZ - 19:46
- Legal expert says Australian court was right to reverse decision
2006-1005 - Radio NZ - 17:18 - Sex
abuse survivors trust pleased
October 5 2006 Federal Court upholds appeal by NZ
requesting extradition
Australia Federal Court has upheld an appeal by New
Zealand authorities against an earlier ruling in April. A full bench of five
judges has overturned Justice Rodney Madgwick's controversial ruling that it
would be "unjust and oppressive" to extradite the men because of
the delay in bringing the charges and differences between the two countries'
legal systems. In particular, Madgwick highlighted that New Zealand judges
were not required to point out the difficulty of such cases to jurors, as
they were in Australia.
2006-1006
- The Press - Clergy sent back for trial
2006-1005 - Radio NZ - 20:32 -
Two Clergymen taken into custody
2006-1005 - Radio NZ - 17:57 -
Police take into custody
2006-1005 - One News -
Catholic brothers to be extradited
2006-1005 - NZ Herald - Court
rules two clergy can be extradited to NZ
2006-1005 - Stuff - Clergymen
to face sex charges in NZ
2006-1005 - Stuff - Clergymen
can be extradited over sex charges
2006-1005 - Radio NZ - 15:56 -
Extradition
2006-1005 - Newstalk
ZB - 15:32 - CatholicsExtradited.htm
2006-1005 - Radio NZ -
14:09 - Extradition Appeal
October 5 2006 Decision on extradition expected
Decision of August appeal expected, and issues
discussed. 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
Scott Optican; (Law lecturer, Auckland University) "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."
James Rapley (Canterbury Criminal Bar Association spokesman): "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."
2006-1005 - The Press - Legal eyes
on extradition ruling on clergymen
August 2 2006 Australian Federal Court Appeal Held
Five justices
– the full bench of the Federal Court – heard the appeal on 2nd August,
reserving their decision. Justice
Rodney Madgwick had 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. New Zealand authorities say
Madgwick erred in ruling against the extradition of the two Catholic clergymen
2006-0803
- Sydney Morning Herald - Fresh extradition battle for clerics on sex charges
2006-0803 - Stuff - NZ appeals clergy
extradition decision
|
