From Assange to Zentai: interpretative conjunctions between international and domestic extradition law in Australia and the United Kingdom

Abstract

ABSTRACTAs a process of formal surrender by one country to another of a person accused or convicted of an offence, extradition has both an international and a domestic operation. This article critically examines the manner in which superior courts in the United Kingdom and Australia determine the domestic and international meaning of words such as ‘accused’, and resolve discrepancies between those meanings, when interpreting and applying extradition treaties and the legislation by which extradition treaties are given domestic effect. It is argued that the difference in interpretative approach between the two jurisdictions is a result of the different backgrounds against which particular cases have arisen, as well as the Australian judicial departure from the position that incorporated extradition treaties should be interpreted by reference to public international law principles of treaty interpretation. However, neither jurisdiction has yet sufficiently resolved how the meaning of a word in an extradition treaty is to be applied as between the substantive law and procedure of different countries.