R. v. Bennett (A.P.), (1993) 155 N.R. 372 (HL)

• Case Date: June 24, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 155 N.R. 372 (HL)

R. v. Bennett (A.P.) (1993), 155 N.R. 372 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Regina v. Horseferry Road Magistrates Court (respondents) ex parte Bennett (A.P.) (appellant)

Indexed As: R. v. Bennett (A.P.)

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Griffiths, Lord Bridge of Harwich,

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Lowry

and Lord Slynn of Hadley

June 24, 1993.

Summary:

Bennett, a citizen of New Zealand, was wanted by the police in England in regard to obtaining the financing for a helicopter by a series of false pretences. Bennett and the helicopter were traced to South Africa. There were no formal extradition provisions in force between South Africa and the United Kingdom. The police declined to attempt to extradite using the special extradition ar­rangements under s. 15 of the Extradition Act 1989. Instead, the police in England informed the South African police of their interest and also noted the existence of warrants for Bennett in Australia and New Zealand. If Bennett was either deported to Australia or repatriated to New Zealand, the police in England could then commence extradition proceedings. Subsequently, the South African police decided to repatriate Bennett to New Zealand via England. The South African police did so in defiance of an order issued by the Supreme Court of South Africa. Bennett was arrested when he arrived in England. Bennett then appeared before a stipendiary magistrate for the purpose of committal proceedings. Bennett applied for an adjournment to challenge the jurisdiction of the magistrates' court. Bennett submitted that the involvement of the English police in the illegal conduct of the South African police was such that it mandated a stay of proceedings.

The magistrates' court refused the applica­tion for an adjournment and committed Bennett to trial on five counts of dishonesty. Bennett obtained leave to apply for judicial review to challenge the decision of the magistrate.

A Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application for judi­cial review on the ground the court lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the circumstances regarding how a defendant came within the jurisdiction. Bennett appealed and the Divi­sional Court certified the question of law to be decided.

The House of Lords allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Divisional Court for further consideration.

Courts - Topic 2013

Jurisdiction - General principles - Crimi­nal cases, stay of proceedings - Bennett, a New Zealander, was wanted in England and New Zealand - The English police located Bennett in South Africa - Extradi­tion was difficult because of the lack of a treaty - Nevertheless, the South African police defied a Supreme Court order and repatriated Bennett to New Zealand by way of England - Bennett was arrested when he landed in England - Bennett applied to have the criminal proceedings stayed on the ground of abuse of process because of the involvement of the English police in the illegal extradition - The Crown submitted that the courts lacked jurisdiction to inquire into how a defendant arrived within the jurisdiction - The House of Lords held that the courts had jurisdic­tion to stay the proceedings.

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Con­trolling abuse of its process - [See Courts - Topic 2013 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 255

General principles - Abuse of process - Power of court, re prevention and remedies - [See Courts - Topic 2013 ].

Extradition - Topic 1802

Arrest in foreign country - General - Illegal extradition, effect of - [See Courts - Topic 2013 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bow Street Magistrates' Court (ex parte Mackeson) (1981), 75 Cr. App. Rep. 24 (Div. Ct.), apprvd. [para. 8].

R. v. Officer Commanding Depot Bat­talion, R.A.S.C., Colchester (ex parte Elliott), [1949] 1 All E.R. 373, overruled [para. 9].

R. v. Hartley, [1978] 2 N.Z.L.R. 199 (C.A.), consd. [para. 10].

R. v. Guildford Magistrates' Court (ex parte Healy), [1983] 1 W.L.R. 108, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Plymouth Justices (ex parte Driver), [1986] Q.B. 95 (Div. Ct.), overruled [para. 13].

Scott (Susannah), Re (1829), 9 B. & C. 446, overruled [para. 14].

Sinclair v. H.M. Advocate (1890), 17 R.(J.) 38, overruled [para. 14].

Ker v. Illinois (1886), 119 U.S. 436, consd. [para. 18].

United States of America v. Sobell (1956), 142 F.Supp. 515; (1957), 244 F.2d 520, consd. [para. 18].

R. v. Sang, [1980] A.C. 402, consd. [para. 21].

United States v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain (1992), 119 L.Ed.2d 441 (U.S.S.C.), consd. [para. 22].

R. v. Whiteside (1904), 8 Can. Cr. Cas. 479, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Walton (1905), 10 Can. Cr. Cas. 269, refd to. [para. 23].

S. v. Ebrahim, [1991] 2 S.A. 553 (S. Af. C.A.), consd. [para. 24].

R. v. Derby Crown Court (ex parte Brooks) (1984), 80 Cr. App. Rep. 164, consd. [para. 26].

Chu Piu Wing v. Attorney General, [1984] H.K.L.R. 411 (C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecu­tions, [1964] A.C. 1254, consd. [para. 29].

R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison (ex parte Sinclair), [1991] 2 A.C. 64 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 33].

Atkinson v. United States of America Government, [1971] A.C. 197 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Humphrys, [1977] A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].

Mills v. Cooper, [1967] 2 Q.B. 459, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Canterbury and St. Augustine Jus­tices (ex parte Klisiak), [1982] Q.B. 398, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. West London Stipendiary Magistrate (ex parte Anderson) (1984), 80 Cr. App. Rep. 143, consd. [para. 35].

R. v. Telford Justices (ex parte Badhan), [1991] 2 Q.B. 78 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Oxford City Justices (ex parte Smith) (1982), 75 Cr. App. Rep. 200, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Guildford Magistrates' Court (ex parte Healy), [1983] 1 W.L.R. 108, refd to. [para. 37].

Frisbie v. Collins (1952), 342 U.S. 519, consd. [para. 43].

United States v. Toscanino (1974), 500 F.2d 267 (C.A., 2nd Cir.), consd. [para. 43].

Moevao v. Department of Labour, [1980] 1 N.Z.L.R. 464, consd. [para. 45].

R. v. Rourke (1977), 16 N.R. 181; 76 D.L.R.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Grays, JJ. (ex parte Low) (1989), 88 Cr. App. Rep. 291, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Horsham, JJ. (ex parte Reeves) (1982), 75 Cr. App. Rep. 236, refd to. [paras. 37, 64].

R. v. Lee Kun, [1916] 1 K.B. 337, consd. [para. 70].

Lam Chi-Ming v. R., [1991] 2 A.C. 212, refd to. [para. 78].

Grassby v. R. (1989), 168 C.L.R. 1 (Aust. H.C.), consd. [para. 84].

R. (Martin) v. Mahony, [1910] 2 I.R. 695, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal (ex parte Shaw), [1952] 1 K.B. 338, refd to. [para. 85].

McC. (a minor), Re, [1985] A.C. 528, refd to. [para. 85].

Ashton, Re, [1993] 2 W.L.R. 846, refd to. [para. 85].

Sinclair, Re, [1991] 2 A.C. 64, refd to. [para. 88].

Counsel:

Alan Newman, Q.C., and B. Jubb, for the appellant;

Colin Nicholls, Q.C., and R. Fischel, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in London, England, on March 3, 4, 8 and 9, 1993, by Lord Griffiths, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Lowry and Lord Slynn of Hadley.

On June 24, the decision of the House of Lords was delivered and the following speeches were given:

Lord Griffiths - see paragraphs 1 to 39;

Lord Bridge of Harwich - see para­graphs 40 to 47;

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton (dissenting in part) - see paragraphs 48 to 61;

Lord Lowry - see paragraphs 62 to 90;

Lord Slynn of Hadley - see paragraph 91.