Following a dismissal from the Supreme Court, New Zealand man Raymond Joseph Tukaki will face historic sexual and violent assault charges in Australia.

The former Bay of Plenty man is charged with six counts of serious sexual and violent assault, crimes he is accused of committing in the Northern Territory in 1998 and 1999.

In May last year the District Court deemed him eligible to be handed over to Australia but he appealed the decision to the High Court and Court of Appeal, which both dismissed his case.

Finally, he sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court decision, arguing it would be "oppressive" to surrender him to Australia.


Tukaki argued the meaning of the word by the courts was too restrictive and wished to argue a more liberal meaning should be given.

He thought the meaning should recognise human rights, including indigenous human rights, which would fall under international treaties, the Treaty of Waitangi and Maori values.

However, the Supreme Court dismissed his application for leave to appeal, claiming it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the case to be heard.

"We do not consider that there is a sufficient factual basis for the argument that the applicant wishes to pursue ... to justify leave being granted," the decision said.

Tukaki, who previously used the last name Reid, has been charged with two counts of assault and one charge of sexual intercourse without consent on his then-partner between January and March 1999.

The three remaining assault charges related to one of the partner's two young children.

Tukaki met the woman in July 1998 while she was holidaying in New Zealand.

A month after she returned home, he travelled to Darwin and they resumed their intimate relationship and she fell pregnant with the first of their two children.


Tukaki returned to New Zealand in about 2000 and apart from a short trip in 2002 has never been back.

The complainants only made police complaints in 2009 and Tukaki was not charged until 2013.

Tukaki appealed earlier decisions that he should be extradited to Australia arguing, through his lawyer, that he should not be extradited due to the length of time which had passed since the alleged offending and his personal circumstances which included links to his whakapapa.