Charles Zentai wins Australia extradition case

[microrobert]

Nazi suspect Charles Zentai wins Australia extradition case

A suspected Nazi war criminal has won his legal fight against the Australian government's attempts to extradite him to face trial in Hungary.

Charles Zentai, 90, was alleged to have tortured and murdered a Jewish teenager in Budapest in 1944.

But the Australian High Court backed an earlier ruling that he could not be extradited because there was no offence of "war crime" in Hungary in 1944.

Mr Zentai has been fighting extradition since 2009.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19264310

[microrobert]

Australian Jewish leader says officials complicit in sheltering Nazi war criminals

SYDNEY, Australia – A senior Jewish leader accused Australian officials of being complicit in allowing Nazi war criminals to seek sanctuary here.

Jeremy Jones, a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said Aug. 19 at the launch of a new book about Nazi war criminals: “Australian governments, through commission and omission, had been complicit in allowing torturers, murderers and architects of the most gross inhumanity to come and live in peace and without fear of consequences in Australia.”

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/08/21/3104581/australian-jewish-leader-says-officials-complicit-in-sheltering-nazi-war-criminals

[The Lawspeaker]

Legally speaking the Australian court did the right thing and if Mr. Jones cannot understand that little principle called "the law" and respect the decision of the court then maybe Mr. Jones should be kicked onto a plane to Tel Aviv.

Was this morally right ? If there has been evidence for Mr. Zentai having committed this "crime" (as it would be unjust to call it a crime because there was no law as such at that time) or outrageous act of murder then the decision was morally unjust but legally right. If there was no evidence to link him to it then the decision of the court was both morally and legally right. Since the BBC article uses the word "alleged" I know enough: he would have faced a show trial using scant evidence and concocted statements from "witnesses". That means that the Australian court did the right thing by protecting a (probably) innocent Australian citizen against this nonsense.

If he is guilty then there is, sadly, little that can be done.