The High Court recently refused to extradite Charles Zentai to Hungary where the Hungarian Government wishes to question him about an alleged war crime in Budapest in 1944. The Hungarians allege that Zentai was involved in the death of a young Jew, Peter Balazs, at that time.
Mr Zentai migrated to Perth, WA, at the end of the Second World War; the Hungarian Government has tried, unsuccessfully, to press its case for justice over the last ten years from Australian courts. In this latest instance, the High Court refused to allow the extradition of Mr Zentai on the ground that the term “war criminal” was not applicable before the end of the war (in May 1945) — so five of the six Justices of the Court denied the extradition request because of what they held to be an incorrect description of Mr Zentai!
This is not so much an example of justice but of playing around with semantics, that is, with the meaning of words. A war crime is not a common crime; here, it is the sort of crime about which the Hungarian Government wishes to question persons of interest, to be returned to Hungary, if necessary, by extradition. Above all, the question remains: why does Mr Zentai not return to face the questioning?
Dr Paul Fidlon
Armidale
