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
To continue reading
Request your trial