The details of the case against Julian Moti are hardly irrelevant to the issue of his extradition to Australia to face charges; a fortiori the fact that he is an Australian citizen does not make the original matter in Vanuatu irrelevant; it is merely what gives the Australian courts jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the Australian international child sex offender legislation. And it is mischievous to describe the David Marr and Marian Wilkinson article in the Sydney Morning Herald which has been quoted (and removed several times) as a statement by "supporters" of Julian Moti. Marr and Wilkinson merely point out in disinterested journalistic fashion the weaknesses in the case against him; it verges on libel to describe this as being supportive of a person you apparently have already condemned as a paedophile. Moti has never been tried; he has addressed the question of whether he has a case to answer; it was that which the Vanuatu Court of Appeal determined had not been properly established and which it remitted back to a second magistrate to reconsider. (You appear to conflate the three Vanuatu hearings into one.) Marr and Wilkinson entirely leave it, as is proper in an impartial news item, for the reader to draw his or her own conclusions as to the implications – if any – of the Australian DPP going after Moti so energetically in the political circumstances of the matter. Or do you consider that any account of the Moti affair which does not condemn Moti and applaud the Australian DPP to be "supportive" of Moti? You might usefully take counsel from the truism of the criminal law that one is innocent until proven guilty, a matter which the Howard Government's minister of immigration and the DPP re-discovered, no doubt to the considerable cost of the public purse when the inevitable action for malicious prosecution and wrongful imprisonment is brought by Dr Mohamed Haneef. (And I hasten to assure you that this does not make me a "supporter" of Julian Moti either.)