¹ Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Nauru relating to Appeals to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Nauru (opened for signature 6 09 1976, entered into force 21 03 1977) 1216 UNTS 151; 1977 Australian Treaty Series (ATS) 11 (hereafter ‘Nauru Treaty’).Google Scholar

² Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth)Google Scholar; Appeals Act 1972 (Nauru).Google Scholar

³ Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth: A Review of the Judiciary Act 1903 and Related Legislation, (Report No 92, 2001) [19.19]–[19.20].Google Scholar

⁴ ibid [19.18]–[19.19], [19.25]–[19.29].

⁵ Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627Google Scholar; Amoe v Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) (1991) 103 ALR 595.Google Scholar

⁶ Ruhani v Director of Police (through the Secretary of Justice as Director of Public Prosecutor) (2005) 222 CLR 489Google Scholar; (2005) 219 ALR 199Google Scholar; [2005] HCA 42 (hereafter ‘Ruhani’)Google Scholar; Ruhani v Director of Police (through the Secretary of Justice as Director of Public Prosecutor) (No 2) (2005) 222 CLR 580Google Scholar; (2005) 219 ALR 270Google Scholar; [2005] HCA 43 (hereafter ‘Ruhani (No 2)’).Google Scholar

⁷ Susan, Boyd, ‘Australian judges at work internationally: Treason, assassinations, coups, legitimacy of government, human rights, poverty and development’ (2003) 77 Australian LJ 303, 306.Google Scholar

⁸ Namely, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Kiribati, and Samoa have Courts of Appeal that are composed of three judges, at least one of whom is an expatriate. For more detail see also Boyd, (n 7), 305–6.Google ScholarSee also Justice and Electoral Committee, New Zealand House of Representatives, Supreme Court Bill (2003) 54–5 (Table 7).Google Scholar

⁹ Constitution of Botswana, s 100(3)(a). See also Robert, Verkaik, ‘Murderer in ‘White Mischief’ Case to Hang’, The Independent (London, 31 01 2001) 15 (Foreign News).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Sir Anthony, Mason, ‘Reflections of an Itinerant Judge in the Asia-Pacific Region’ (2000) 28 Intl J of Legal Information 311, 322.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Ibralebbe v R [1964] All ER 251, 259Google Scholar, as cited in Fawcett, JES, ‘The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and International Law’ (1967) 42 British Ybk of Intl L 229.Google Scholar

¹² However, some have doubted whether the term ‘supranational’ is apt when referring to the Caribbean Court of Justice: Pollard, Duke E., The Caribbean Court of Justice: Closing the Circle of Independence (Caribbean Law Publishing Co, Kingston, 2004) 179.Google Scholar

¹³ However, to date only two countries have ratified provisions regarding the appellate jurisdiction of the court: namely Barbados and Guyana: The Constitution (Amendment) Act 2003Google Scholar, and The Caribbean Court of Justice (Amendment) Act 2003 (Barbados)Google Scholar; Caribbean Court of Justice Act 2004 (Guyana).Google Scholar The European Court of Justice cannot be characterised as a supranational court of appeal because the preliminary ruling procedure under art 234 of the EC Treaty does not demote the national courts below the ECJ. Instead, national courts seek guidance from the ECJ over matters regarding EC law, and this can hardly been seen as correcting errors of the lower courts: see David, Anderson, ‘The Law Lords and the European Courts’ in Le Sueur, Andrew (ed), Building the UK's New Supreme Court: National and Comparative Perspectives (OUP, Oxford, 2004) 201–2.Google Scholar The same can be said for the European Court of Human Rights.

¹⁴ Revised Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice Fund.

¹⁵ See further Swinfen, David B, Imperial Appeal: the debate on appeal to the Privy Council, 1833–1986 (MUP, Manchester, 1987) 178–220.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Geoffrey, Robertson, The Justice Game (Chatto & Windus, London, 1998) 100Google Scholar; Boyd, (n 7) 306.Google Scholar

¹⁷ David, Simmons, ‘Issues of Judicial Independence in the Caribbean Court Room’ (2001) 14 Commonwealth Judicial J 8, 13.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Justice and Electoral Committee, New Zealand House of Representatives, Supreme Court Bill (2003), 11–12.Google Scholar

¹⁹ eg the Privy Council's position within the Jamaican judicial hierarchy is ensured through the Constitution of Jamaica, s 110.

²⁰ Megan, Richardson, ‘The Privy Council and New Zealand’ (1997) 46 ICLQ 908, 912–13Google Scholar; Robyn, Martin, ‘Diverging Common Law: Invercargill Goes to the Privy Council’ (1997) 60 MLR 94.Google Scholar In 2003, New Zealand ended appeals to the Privy Council and established its own Supreme Court.

²¹ [1994] 2 AC 1 (hereafter ‘Pratt’).Google Scholar

²² Pratt [1994] 2 AC 1 at 17.Google Scholar

²³ Pratt, at 22. See also Helfer, Lawrence R, ‘Overlegalizing Human Rights: International Relations Theory and the Commonwealth Backlash Against Human Rights Regimes’ (2002) 102 Columbia L Rev 1832, 1869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Helfer, (n 23) 1869.Google Scholar

²⁵ Pratt, at 30.Google Scholar

²⁶ Constitution of Jamaica s 17(1); Pratt, at 33.Google Scholar

²⁷ Pratt, at 35 (my emphasis).Google Scholar

²⁸ Helfer, (n 23) 1888–91.Google Scholar

²⁹ David Simmons rebuked such suggestions: see Peter, Gregory and Fergus, Shiel, ‘Remarks outrage Caribbean judges’, The Age (Melbourne, 15 04 2003) 4.Google ScholarSee also Kirsty Brimelow, ‘A shadow of death hangs over Jamaica and its criminals’, The Times (London, 17 10 2006) 4 (Law).Google Scholar

³⁰ Simmons, , ‘The Caribbean Court of Justice: A Unique Institution of Caribbean Creativity’ (2005) 29 Nova L Rev 171, 175.Google Scholar

³¹ Kenneth, Handley, ‘The Constitutional Crisis in Fiji’ (2002) 5 The Judicial Rev 287, 287.Google Scholar Similarly, Non-Permanent Judges of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal are appointed on three-year terms: Hsu, Berry F.C. ‘Judicial Independence Under the Basic Law’ (2004) 34 Hong Kong LJ 279, 297.Google Scholar

³² Simmons, (n 17) 12Google Scholar; Dorothy, Lightbourne, ‘A Leap into the Dark’ in Delano, Franklyn (ed), We Want Justice: Jamaica and the Caribbean Court of Justice (Ian Randle Publishers, Kingston, 2005) 108–9.Google Scholar This is a troubling prospect in small states where the appointment of acting judges can be dependent on the whim of an individual eg. Under the Constitution of Nauru, Art 53, an acting judge may be appointed and dismissed by the President of Nauru alone.

³³ See, eg, Forge v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2006] HCA 44 at [220]–[222] (Kirby, J)Google Scholar; Justice Michael, Kirby, ‘Independence of the legal profession: Global and regional challenges’ (2005) 26 Australian Bar Rev 133, 140–1.Google Scholar

³⁴ George, Williams, ‘The Case that Stopped a Coup? The Rule of Law and Constitutionalism in Fiji’ (2001) 1 OUCLJ 73.Google Scholar

³⁵ ibid.

³⁶ ibid.

³⁷ ibid.

³⁸ Prasad v Republic of Fiji Islands [2001] NZAR 21Google Scholar; [2000] FJHC 122 (High Court of Fiji).Google Scholar

³⁹ Republic of Fiji Islands v Prasad [2001] NZAR 385Google Scholar; [2001] FJCA 2 (Court of Appeal of Fiji).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Handley (n 31).

⁴¹ Mason, (n 10) 316.Google Scholar

⁴² Ian, Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (6th edn, OUP, Oxford, 2003) 75Google Scholar, Crawford, (n 55) 31–2.Google Scholar

⁴³ Supreme Court Act 2003 (NZ) s 3(1)(a)(i).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Reid, Alan S. and Nick, Ryder, ‘Death of the Privy Council: Exaggeration or Stated Fact?’ (2001) 14 Commonwealth Judicial J 32, 36.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ New Zealand, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 14 Oct 2003, 9112 (Richard Worth).

⁴⁶ Justice Robert, French, ‘Judicial exchange: Debalkanising the courts’ (2006) 15 J of Judicial Administration 142, 142.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ ibid.

⁴⁸ This is just one of such bodies. Others include, eg, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

⁴⁹ Optional Protocol to the Convention on Civil and Political Rights (opened for signature 19 12 1966, entered into force generally 23 03 1976; entered into force in Australia 25 12 1991; entered into force in Nauru 12 11 2001) 999 UNTS 171Google Scholar; [1991] ATS 39Google Scholar, Art 5(2)(b) (hereafter ‘Optional Protocol’).

⁵⁰ Natalie, Schiffrin, ‘Jamaica withdraws the right to individual petition under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ (1998) 92 The American J of Intl L 563, 566–7.Google Scholar See Helfer (n 23) who advances three theories as to why Jamaica withdrew from the Protocol.

⁵¹ Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos Representación Regional para América Latina y el Caribe (2005) Compilación de observaciones finales del Comité de Derechos Humanos sobre países de América Latina y el Caribe (1977–2004), Caudro II.2 ‘Estado de Ratificaciones del Protocolo Facultativo del Pacto International de Derechos Civiles y Politicos en America Latina y el Caribe’, 49: Guyana decided to denounce the Optional Protocol, only to re-accede on the same day; Jamaica denounced the Protocol on 23 Oct 1997; and Trinidad and Tobago denounced the Protocol on 26 May 1998 and then re-acceded on 27 Mar 2000, only to denounce the Protocol again with effect from 27 June 2000.Google Scholar

⁵² Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights New York, 16 December 1966’ (2006) <http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/5.htm> accessed 26 January 2006+accessed+26+January+2006>Google Scholar; see generally Helfer, (n 23) 1881–2.Google Scholar

⁵³ ibid. Notably, Finland and Sweden expressed regret to such a reservation.

⁵⁴ Stephen, Vasciannie, The Privy Council versus the Caribbean Court of Appeal: some general observations (Officer of the Deputy Vice Chancellor, The University of the West Indies, 1996), 7.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ For an extensive history of Nauru see Christopher, Weeramantry, Nauru: Environmental Damage Under International Trusteeship (OUP, Melbourne, 1992)Google Scholar; See also James, Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2nd edn, OUP, Oxford, 2006) 47 (Table 1).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Australian Department of Foreign Affairs, ‘Nauru’ <http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/naur.pdf> accessed 26 03 2007.+accessed+26+03+2007.>Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Antony, Anghie, ‘“The Heart of My Home”: Colonialism, Environmental Damage, and the Nauru Case’ (1993) 34 Harvard Intl LJ 445, 449–50.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ ibid 450.

⁵⁹ ibid 450.

⁶⁰ ibid 451.

⁶¹ David, Goldsworthy, Losing the blanket: Australia and the End of Britain's Empire (Melbourne University Press, Carlton South, 2002) 38–40.Google Scholar

⁶² Anghie, (n 57) 452.Google Scholar

⁶³ ibid.

⁶⁴ Nauru Independence Act 1967 (Cth).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Anghie, (n 57) 452–4.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Agreement for the settlement of the case in the International Court of Justice concerning certain phosphate lands in Nauru (opened for signature 10 08 1993, entered into force 10 08 1993) 1770 UNTS 379.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ UNGA, ‘Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary General’ (1967) 22nd Sess, para 163Google Scholar, UN Doc A/6701/Add.1 cited in Daniel, Orlow, ‘Of Nations Small: The Small State in International Law’ (1995) 9 Temple Intl and Comparative LJ 115, 126Google Scholar; Grant, Thomas D, ‘States newly admitted to the United Nations: Some Implications’ (2000) 39 Columbia J of Transnational L 177, 180.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Orlow, (n 67) 115.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ John, Connell, ‘Nauru: The First Failed Pacific State?’ (2006) 95 The Round Table 47, 53.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Republic of Nauru, ‘Letter dated 8 January 2003 from the Permanent Representative of Nauru to the United Nations addressed to the Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to Resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter-terrorism’, UN Doc S/2003/127.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Craig, Skehan, ‘Nauru defends whaling stance’ Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, 27 06 2005) 8Google Scholar; Peter, Alford, ‘Votes on whales ‘not sold’’ The Australian (24 06 2005) 9Google Scholar; See also Alexander, Gillespie, ‘Transparency in International Environmental Law: A Case Study of the International Whaling Commission’ (2002) 14 Georgetown Intl Environmental L Rev 333, 345–7.Google Scholar

⁷² Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ‘Australia disappointed by Pacific whaling vote’ <http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1399886.htm> accessed 27 03 2007.+accessed+27+03+2007.>Google Scholar

⁷³ Connell, (n 69) 57.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Western Pacific (Courts) Orders 1961 to 1971 (UK).

⁷⁵ Arrangement ended by The Kiribati Independence Order 1979 (UK) and Kiribati Act 1979 (UK) s 6.

⁷⁶ Kiribati Constitution s 123; At one time civil appeals ran from Seychelles to sovereign Mauritius: Fiji: Constitutional Conference, London, Apr 1970. UK Brief No. FCC (70) 4(h) Supplementary Brief, 2.

⁷⁷ A similar arrangement existed between Western Samoa and New Zealand when Western Samoa was under the trusteeship of New Zealand. The arrangement ended when Western Samoa achieved independence: Western Samoa Act 1961 (NZ) s 7.

⁷⁸ Nauru Treaty (n 1) Art 1(A)(a).

⁷⁹ ibid Art 1(A)(b)(i).

⁸⁰ ibid Art 1(A)(b)(ii).

⁸¹ ibid Art 1(B).

⁸² ibid Art 6(1).

⁸³ ibid Art 6(2).

⁸⁴ This provision appears to pay homage to the long-standing rule in private international law known as the ‘Moçambique rule’, which prevents a court from hearing matters relating to foreign immovables. See British South Africa Company v The Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Nauru Treaty (n 1) Art 2.

⁸⁶ Although the preamble to the Nauru Treaty mentions the phrase ‘Court of Appeal’ no such court exists: Ruhani v Director of Police [2004] HCATrans 440 (10 11 2004) [459]–[464] (Mr Hanks).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Appeals Act 1972 (Nauru) s 41(1); High Court Rules 1952 (Cth) Order 70A(3) (repealed).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Nauru Treaty (n 1) Art 1(A); ALRC (n 3) [19.15].Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Nauru Act 1965 (Cth) s 54, made pursuant to the Agreement between the Government of Australia, the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland relating to the Territory of Nauru (opened for signature on 26 11 1965, entered into force 26 11 1965) 1965 ATS 20 Art 5(4).Google Scholar No such case was ever appealed from the Court of Appeal (as it then existed) to the High Court under these arrangements: Commonwealth of Australia, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 2 12 1976, 2469 (Senator McClelland). The arrangement under the Nauru Act 1965 (Cth) s 54(2) was subject to the ‘leave of the High Court’.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Commonwealth of Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 1 11 1967, 2541 (Mr Bowen, Attorney-General)Google Scholar; the Constitution of Nauru art 57(2) also contemplates such an arrangement, stipulating that ‘Parliament may provide that an appeal lies as prescribed by law from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of the Supreme Court to a court of another country.’

⁹¹ Appeals (Amendment) Act 1974 (Nauru).Google Scholar

⁹² Commonwealth of Australia, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 2 12 1976, 2469 (Senator McClelland).Google Scholar

⁹³ Commonwealth of Australia, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 4 11 1976, 1610–12 (Senator Durack).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ ALRC (n 3) [19.25].Google Scholar

⁹⁵ ibid [19.27].

⁹⁶ ibid [19.26].

⁹⁷ (hereafter ‘Re Wakim’)(1999) 198 CLR 511.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Constitution of Australia Act 1901 (Cth), s 73.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Constitution of Australia Act 1901 (Cth), ss 75 and 76.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Ruhani at [119] (Gummow, & Hayne, JJ).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Inc v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (hereafter ‘VCCL’)(2001) 182 ALR 617 at [14]–[17].Google ScholarSee also Peter, Mares, Borderline: Australia's response to refugees and asylum seekers in the wake of the Tampa (UNSW Press, Sydney, 2001).Google Scholar

¹⁰² VCCL at [18].Google Scholar

¹⁰³ ibid at [22].

¹⁰⁴ ibid at [25]–[26]; in these cases the term ‘rescuees’ was adopted by the courts insetad of asylum-seekers in the interests of neutrality: ibid at [17] Mares (n 101) 122–6.

¹⁰⁵ ibid at [27]; Border Protection Bill 2001 (Cth) s 8.

¹⁰⁶ VCCL at [29].Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ ibid at [70], [72], [81].

¹⁰⁸ ibid at [170].

¹⁰⁹ Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 183 ALR 1 at 55, 57.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ ibid at 55–8.

¹¹¹ Transcript of Proceedings, Vadarlis v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs No M93 of 2001 (High Court of Australia, 27 11 2001).Google Scholar

¹¹² ibid at ll 2246–8 (Gaudron J).

¹¹³ Ruhani v Director of Police (through the Secretary of Justice as the Director of Public Prosecutor) (2005) 222 CLR 489 at 490Google Scholar; Meaghan, Shaw, ‘Nauru can hold asylum seekers, High Court rules’, The Age (Melbourne 1 09 2005) 6.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Amiri v Director of Police [2004] Civil Action No 8 of 2004 at [1]Google Scholar (Unreported, Supreme Court of Nauru, Connell CJ, 31 05 2004).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ ibid at [16].

¹¹⁶ ibid at [27].

¹¹⁷ ibid at [33].

¹¹⁸ Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth).Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Ruhani at [2].Google Scholar

¹²⁰ ibid at [19].

¹²¹ Ruhani v Director of Police (through the Secretary of Justice as the Director of Public Prosecutor) (2005) 222 CLR 489 at 492.Google Scholar

¹²² ibid at 493–4.

¹²³ Ruhani at [119] (Gummow, & Hayne, JJ).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Ruhani at [108].Google Scholar

¹²⁵ ibid at [110]–[112] (Gummow & Hayne JJ).

¹²⁶ ibid at [159] (Kirby J), [282] (Callinan & Heydon JJ).

¹²⁷ ibid at [282].

¹²⁸ ibid at [79] (footnotes omitted).

¹²⁹ Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (hereafter ‘Kable’) (1996) 189 CLR 51.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ ibid at 63.

¹³¹ ibid.

¹³² ibid at 64.

¹³³ ibid.

¹³⁴ ibid at 102 (Gaudron J).

¹³⁵ ibid at 109 (McHugh J).

¹³⁶ ibid at 107 (Gaudron J).

¹³⁷ ibid at 106; 107–8 (Gaudron J).

¹³⁸ Nauru Treaty (n 1) Art 2(a).

¹³⁹ Sueur, Andrew Le, What is the future for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? (The Constitution Unit, UCL, London, 2001) 5.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Privy Council Office, ‘The Oath of a Privy Counsellor’ <http://www.privycouncil.gov.uk/files/word/Privy%20Counsellor's%20Oath.doc> (accessed 2 01 2007).+(accessed+2+01+2007).>Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Sir Gerard Brennan, ‘Speech on swearing in as Chief Justice’ (1995) <http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/brennanj/brennanj_swearing.htm> (accessed 2 01 2007).+(accessed+2+01+2007).>Google Scholar

¹⁴² ibid.

¹⁴³ ALRC (n 3) [19.26].Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ eg the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago 1976 s 109(1)(c) stipulates that appeals are to lie to the Privy Council as of right against any ‘final decisions in any civil, criminal or other proceedings which involve a question as to the interpretation’ of the Constitution, subject to some exceptions.

¹⁴⁵ It also gives credence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (opened for signature 16 12 1966, entered into force generally 23 03 1976, entered into force in Australia 23 03 1976; entered into force in Nauru 12 11 2001) 999 UNTS 171Google Scholar; 1980 ATS 23 Art 14(5).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Commonwealth of Australia, Hansard, Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Senate, 26 05 2006, 17–18, 21 (Brian Walters SC).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Ruhani (No 2) at [26] (footnote omitted).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ ibid at [34].

¹⁴⁹ Ruhani at [289].Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Although it is difficult to gain a holistic impression of the HRC's influence: UNGA, ‘Report of the Human Rights Committee, vol. 1’ UN Doc Supp No 40 (A/61/40) paras 229–31; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee’, Fact Sheet No 15 (Rev 1) <http://www.ohchr.org/english/about/publications/docs/fs15rev.1_en.pdf> (accessed 27 03 2007), 29–30.+(accessed+27+03+2007),+29–30.>Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ ibid at [294].

¹⁵² Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Constitution of Nauru Art 4; Appeals Act 1972 (Nauru) s 39(1). Furthermore, Nauru is not a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (opened for signature on 15 12 1989, entered into force generally 11 07 1991; entered into force in Australia 11 07 1991) 1642 UNTS 414Google Scholar; [1991] ATS 19 (hereafter ‘Second Optional Protocol’).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) s 22(3)(c). See further New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, ‘Submission to the Minister for Justice and Customs review of Australia's Extradition Law’ (2006) <http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/pdf/extradition%20review.pdf> (accessed 15 05 2006).+(accessed+15+05+2006).>Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Section 4.

¹⁵⁶ Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973 (Cth) s 5.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ ibid, s 3(2).

¹⁵⁸ Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Ruhani at [8]Google Scholar(Gleeson, CJ), [66]–[67]Google Scholar(McHugh, J), [103]–[105]Google Scholar(Gummow, & Hayne, JJ), [216]–[217]Google Scholar(Kirby, J).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Ruhani at [78].Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice Art III, para 3.

¹⁶² Oliver v The Queen [2007] UKPC 9 at [19].Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Swinfen, (n 15) 201–2.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ This may parallel some of the problems that beset the United Kingdom when it was establishing a Pitcairn Court of Appeal offshore in New Zealand. That required a formal treaty which was far more thoroughgoing than the Nauru Treaty. See the Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning trials under Pitcairn Law in New Zealand and related matters (opened for signature on 11 10 2002, entered into force 14 03 2003) 2219 UNTS 58.Google Scholar