Case Review: Constitutional application

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Pages: 233-240
• Date: 19 August 2019
• Author: Anashri Pillay
• Published date: 19 August 2019
• Citation: (2005) 18 SACJ 233

Case reviews

233

Constitutional application

ANASHRI PILLAY

University of Cape Town

Interpretation – section 10 of the Extradition Act 67 of 1962

S v Robinson

2004 (2) SACR 498 (C) involved extradition proceedings

in respect of the appellant, who had been convicted in a Canadian court,

had absconded to South Africa before sentencing, and was sentenced

in

absentia

. Canada had requested his extradition to serve the sentence (at

501

d-f

). Section 10(1) of the Extradition Act 1962 provides:

d-f). Section 10(1) of the Extradition Act 1962 provides:d-f

‘If upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the enquiry referred to in

section 9(4)(

a

) and (

b

)(i) the magistrate f‌i nds that the per son brought before

him or her is liable to be surrendered to the foreign State concerned and, in

the case where such person is accused of an offence, that there is suff‌i cient

evidence to warrant a prosecution for the offence in the foreign State concerned,

the magistrate shall issue an order committing such person to prison to await

the Minister’s decision with regard to his or her surrender, at the same time

informing such person that he or she may within 15 days appeal against such

order to the Supreme Court.’

Relying on the ordinary dictionary meaning of the term ‘liable’, the High

Court interpreted the term ‘liable to be surrendered’ to mean that the

magistrate had to decide whether there was an obligation on South Afr ica

to surrender Mr Robinson to the Canadian authorities (at 504

d-f

). The court

d-f). The court d-f

(2005) 18 SACJ 233

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd