Man fails in appeal against extradition to Australia to answer charges on alleged machete attack

Paul Joseph Tamainu has unsuccessfully challenged his extradition. Photo / 123rf

A man accused of donning a balaclava, bursting into a hotel room and carrying out a machete attack has lost an appeal against his extradition.

Paul Joseph Tamainu will be surrendered to Australia where he will face trial on three grievous bodily harm charges.

It is alleged he was involved in a serious attack on three men in Western Australia in a drug deal gone wrong.

Tamainu, who also goes by the name of Paul Joseph George, is accused of using a machete to harm the victims during the June 2016 incident.

Two of his associates also faced charges in relation to the incident and were found guilty in the Perth District Court following a trial in 2017.

Tamainu, however, allegedly skipped two of his court appearances and a warrant for his arrest was issued in Australia in November of that year.

But by that time, he had already left the country, having travelled to Auckland from Perth only weeks earlier.

The appeal was heard in the High Court. Photo / NZME

Fast forward five years and Tamainu was suspected to be in Taranaki and an application for his extradition was filed with the District Court in September last year.

Judge Gregory Hikaka endorsed the Australian arrest warrant and within days he was located by police and arrested.

On January 30, this year, the matter was called in the New Plymouth District Court before Judge Tony Greig, who was tasked with considering whether Tamainu was eligible for surrender.

Tamainu represented himself and claimed he was a sovereign person who was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and was being denied justice.

Among his many interjections throughout the hearing, he also submitted he needed more time to formulate a response in opposition to the extradition application, claiming he hadn’t long received the relevant paperwork.

However, Judge Greig was satisfied Tamainu was eligible for extradition and issued a warrant for his detention pending his surrender.

Tamainu immediately filed an appeal against the decision and enlisted the services of defence lawyer Mark Ryan.

The challenge was heard on Wednesday and in the reserved decision, released today, the High Court has upheld Judge Greig’s ruling.

At the appeal, Ryan argued his client’s right to justice had been breached. He submitted that Tamainu, as a self-represented and vulnerable person, suffered significant prejudice.

Ryan claimed Tamainu had only received documentation relating to the case days before his January hearing and so was not given a proper opportunity to respond.

He asked for the High Court to remit the matter back to the District Court for rehearing.

The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing Tamainu had not established the court had failed to meet its natural justice obligations.

Crown prosecutor Jo Woodcock said Tamainu had acknowledged receipt of the extradition application and supporting documentation in September last year.

“Therefore any claim that he had not seen the documentation is plainly untrue.”

Woodcock also submitted Tamainu was initially represented by counsel and had ample opportunity to engage with them.

That lawyer went on to withdraw from the case on the basis Tamainu had not provided them with instructions.

Justice Helen McQueen considered the appeal and found there had been no error of law.

She was satisfied Tamainu was provided with an opportunity to be heard, and said there was no basis upon which to conclude that his natural justice rights had been breached.

Accordingly, she dismissed the appeal and ordered that the District Court decision be confirmed.