A man has failed to avoid his extradition to Australia where he will face several charges of sexual abuse against a child.
Last month the man appealed a district court decision that ordered him to be surrendered to Australian authorities to answer 12 charges.
The man sought not be extradited, arguing he had "already been punished in New Zealand" for the same offending, but Justice Gerald Nation did not agree and refused his appeal.
In March 2016, the man was sentenced by Judge Mark Callaghan in the Invercargill District Court after he pleaded guilty to one charge of unlawful sexual connection and one charge of indecent assault.
The charge was related to an incident on November 21, 2014, when he sexually assaulted a girl.
In her police interview, the girl described about 20 occasions where she had to touch his genitals or he touched her, including times in Australia when he had used a vibrator and made her watch pornographic videos.
The Australian offences happened before the man moved to New Zealand in October 2014.
"The alleged offending in Australia, as he described it, was more serious than the offending in New Zealand," court documents said.
At the sentencing, Judge Callaghan said he was conscious the man was being sentenced only in relation to the two New Zealand charges, but noted the incidents that happened in Australia were aggravating factors of "grooming-type behaviour".
In July 2016, an arrest warrant was issued by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia in relation to five charges of indecent dealing with a child, five charges of sexual penetration of a child, one charge of encouraging a child to engage in sexual behaviour and one charge of persistent sexual conduct with a child under 16 years.
At the time, Australia sought the man's extradition from New Zealand, but he opposed.
Judge Bernadette Farnan did not accept that the man had "undergone punishment provided by the law of ... New Zealand" and issued a warrant of detention and made a surrender order. She noted the difference between the offences, both in time and type.
Judge Farnan called the Australian offending clearly separate and discrete offending, for which Judge Callaghan had not punished the defendant.
Defence counsel Sonia Vidal filed an appeal to the High Court submitting he had been punished in New Zealand.
She said the legislation prevented a New Zealand court from hearing evidence about the allegations when it was Australia seeking extradition, so this process would "remove the individual's right to know the case against them, to challenge that case, the right of freedom of movement and the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained".
Ms Vidal also said the seeking of an order for surrender was an abuse of court process because the Crown in New Zealand sought to have the Australian offending taken into account at sentencing, and still went on to advise the Australian authorities and seek extradition.
Ms Vidal said the man did not have to show he was sentenced for the same offending, but that he was punished for the same offending.
She said it was apparent from the judge's sentencing remarks that he had taken the Australian offending into account.
In the appeal decision, Justice Nation said he could not be satisfied the man was punished in New Zealand for the offending with which he was charged in Australia.
He said the offending was distinct in "nature and extent" and Judge Callaghan took the Australian conduct into account as a grooming-type behaviour, which indicated premeditation for the New Zealand offending.
"The judge was careful not to find there had been criminal offending in Australia."
Justice Nation said Judge Farnan took proper account of the Extradition Act, and dismissed the appeal.
"The appellant remains subject to the surrender order made in the district court and the warrant for his detention in a penal institution pending surrender to Australia."
