Chapter 9

The jurisdiction of the court

The current law

Standard proceedings383

9.3In standard extradition proceedings, the District Court has the same powers and jurisdiction, and must conduct the proceedings in the same manner, as if it was a domestic “committal hearing” for “an indictable offence” allegedly committed in New Zealand.384 To that end, Parts 5 and 5A of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 apply.
9.4Committal hearings and indictable offences were, however, abolished in New Zealand by the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. As part of that process, Parts 5 and 5A of the Summary Proceedings Act were repealed. The Extradition Act was amended to state that, for the purposes of the standard procedure, the Summary Proceedings Act must be read as if the Summary Proceedings Act was still in effect.385

Backed-warrant procedure386

9.5The approach to the backed-warrant procedure is more straightforward because it is aligned to the Criminal Procedure Act. The Criminal Procedure Act includes a form of summary proceeding for what it terms category 2 offences, which is applied to the backed-warrant process.387


9.6The Summary Proceedings Act’s provisions were assessed as “out of date and excessively inflexible”.388 New Zealand’s domestic criminal procedure is now governed by the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. It is difficult to incorporate provisions from the repealed Summary Proceedings Act.

Options for reformTop

9.7Future extradition legislation could either:

9.8We think that the appropriate procedural rules for extradition differ so significantly from those in the Criminal Procedure Act that a purpose-built set of procedures is needed for both standard procedure and backed-warrant extraditions.

383​For full discussion on the standard procedure see ch 2 and Figure 2.
384Extradition Act 1999, s 22(1)(a).
385Extradition Act 1999, s 22(4).
386For full discussion on the backed-warrant procedure, see ch 2 and Figure 3.
387Extradition Act 1999, s 43(1).
388The general policy statement in the Explanatory Note to the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010 (243-1) relevantly states: “Over the last 10 to 20 years, the law relating to criminal procedure has attracted increasing criticism. The principal statutes governing criminal procedure are out of date and excessively inflexible.”
389Broadly speaking, this could involve applying the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 that enable the filing of evidential statements and testing of evidence before trial with perhaps a cross-reference to ss 82–86 and 92–100 of the Criminal Procedure Act.