skip to main | skip to sidebar# Mike Ross Law Blog
Legal issues: Inside out
Popular Posts
23 March 2016
### Extradition: Mailley v. District Court
Extradition to Australia for alleged serial fraudster Martin James Mailley to face two miilion dollars in fraud charges has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal eight years after his arrest. Appeals against extradition on health grounds were dismissed.
Mailley’s New Zealand birth was registered as Martin James Mailley, but he also holds passports in the names James Martin Caldwell, Martin James Craigie and Francis John Springhall. When arrested in Queensland for fraud he was found to hold drivers licences in multiple names and more than 18 credit cards in 12 different identities. His de facto partner, Sabrina Nutarelli, pleaded guilty in Queensland to involvement in credit card fraud, serving six months of a three year jail sentence. Mailley pleaded not guilty. He fled to New Zealand prior to trial, where he now lives with Ms Nutarelli and their daughter.
The Court of Appeal was told Australian police discovered hundreds of thousands of dollars under Mailley’s control had been transferred to New Zealand bank accounts in the name of Mailley or his family. Mailley was arrested in New Zealand on an Australian warrant in July 2008. There are streamlined procedures in the Extradition Act for trans-Tasman extraditions. The District Court ordered extradition in March 2008. Since then, Mailley has delayed extradition with a series of appeals. He has been out of custody, on bail, since December 2008.
Mailley applied to have his extradition referred to the Minister of Justice on health grounds. The Minister has a discretion: extradition may be delayed; or permitted subject to undertakings from the the extradition country. The District Court refused Mailley’s application. Evidence was given that 64 year old Mailley has a significant personality disorder, suffering from bipolar affective disorder. He is also affected by obstructive sleep apnoea, suffers significant back pain, has heart disease and was diagnosed last year as having a tumour on his neck, suspected to be a secondary cancer spread from an unknown primary site. He had attempted suicide on previous occasions.
The Court of Appeal confirmed Mailley did not have sufficient grounds to seek intervention by the Minister. Unfortunate though Mr Mailley’s health problems are, the Court said, they are not out of the ordinary. There is no suggestion that the Australian authorities are not capable of dealing with these problems and the associated suicide risk, the Court added.
Mailley v. District Court – Court of Appeal (23.03.16)
16.050
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
About Me
Mike Ross Mike Ross spent nearly thirty years teaching all aspects of commercial law to business students and almost as many years writing variously for The New Zealand Herald, The National Business Review and The Chartered Accountants' Journal. He authored two books on legal principles governing business reconstructions. Mike Ross holds degrees in both law and economics from the University of Auckland.View my complete profile
Stay Current : Updates by Email send details to
current.nzbloglex@gmail.com
Comment and Corrections
contact
nzbloglex@gmail.com
Previous Posts
