Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v The Minister of Justice

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 113/2009
[2010] NZSC 8

BETWEENSLAWOMIR RYSZARD BUJAK

Applicant

ANDTHE MINISTER OF JUSTICE

Respondent

Court:Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel:F C Deliu for Applicant

V E Casey for Respondent

Judgment:11 February 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent

REASONS

[1] The applicant, having failed in his attempt to judicially review the decision of a District Court that he should be extradited to Poland, now seeks leave to appeal against the rejection of his application for judicial review of the Minister’s decision under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999 that he should be surrended to the Polish authorities. The applicant argued in the Court of Appeal that the Minister had failed to take account of certain humanitarian considerations. He contended unsuccessfully that the Court should not follow its decision in Yuen Kwok-Fung v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.[1]He seeks to have that decision considered by this Court.
[1] [2001] 3 NZLR 463.
[2] However, even if this Court were minded to overrule Yuen – a case on which we should not be taken to be casting any doubt – it would not avail Mr Bujak. This is because, as the Court of Appeal also concluded, the humanitarian arguments would certainly fail on the facts. The matters raised were, as the Court said, “well short of the standard of seriousness required on the overseas authorities”.[2] The Minister could not reasonably have assessed them as requiring him to decline to surrender Mr Bujak.
[2] At para [56].
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Slawomir Ryszard Bujak applied for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had rejected his application for judicial review of the Minister of Justice’s decision to extradite him to Poland. The Court of Appeal had found that the Minister had properly considered the extradition decision and that the applicant's arguments about humanitarian considerations were without merit. The Supreme Court considered the applicant's request for leave to appeal, which required assessing whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its conclusions or whether there was any significant legal issue warranting further consideration by the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal had correctly determined that the Minister had properly exercised his discretion in deciding to extradite the applicant to Poland. The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to adequately consider certain humanitarian factors, which he contended should have influenced the decision against extradition. The Court also had to consider whether the Court of Appeal's reliance on the decision in Yuen Kwok-Fung v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China was appropriate in the context of the present case.

The Supreme Court concluded that even if it were inclined to reconsider the decision in Yuen Kwok-Fung, which it did not suggest, the outcome for the applicant would not change. The humanitarian arguments presented by the applicant were deemed insufficiently compelling to warrant a departure from the extradition decision. The Court of Appeal's assessment that these arguments fell short of the required standard was upheld by the Supreme Court, which found no basis for allowing the appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established