PP v Lim Yong Nam

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 05 March 2012
• Date: 05 March 2012
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 7 of 2012
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Lim Yong Nam

Defendant

[2012] SGHC 45

Choo Han Teck J

Criminal Motion No 7 of 2012

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Extradition—Bail—Whether bail might be granted after committal proceedings under Extradition Act (Cap 103, 2000 Rev Ed)—Section 11 Extradition Act (Cap 103, 2000 Rev Ed)

The respondent was apprehended under a warrant of apprehension issued pursuant to a notice by the Minister under s 9 (1) (a) of the Extradition Act (Cap 103, 2000 Rev Ed). The respondent was subsequently released on bail pending committal proceedings. The committal proceedings were held. The Magistrate committed the respondent to prison pending extradition and allowed the respondent's application to continue to be on bail after the committal order. The Public Prosecutor applied to revoke the order for bail.

Held, granting the application:

(1) Section 11 of the Extradition Act only provided for bail pending the committal hearing. A fundamental principle in criminal process was that until a person has been charged, he was presumed to be innocent of any wrongdoing that warranted detention unless the court was satisfied that he was a flight risk in the face of impending or ongoing police investigation. This was not the case here. Extradition proceedings were not a local criminal matter: at [2].

(2) A warrant of committal under the Extradition Act was a final order in so far as there was no provision in the Act for an appeal. The challenge to the warrant of committal was an application for an order for review of detention, which was a relief when there was no other remedy available. Bail implied that some remedy existed, like the availability of appeal: at [3].

(3) Under the Extradition Act, once a warrant of committal was issued, only the order to surrender the prisoner to the applicant jurisdiction remained. There was no reason for the prisoner to be on bail since there was no right of appeal. The only course available was to apply for an order for review of detention: at [4].

Extradition Act (Cap 103, 2000 Rev Ed) s 11 (consd) ;ss 9 (1) (a) , 11 (7) , 12, 11 (8)

Mark Jayaratnam and Crystal Tan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the applicant

Hamidul Haq, Thong Chee Kun and Yusfiyanto Yatiman (Rajah & Tan LLP) for the respondent.

Choo Han Teck J

1 The respondent was apprehended with three other persons on 25 October 2011 under a warrant of apprehension issued by a Subordinate Courts judge pursuant to a notice by the Minister under s 9 (1) (a) of the Extradition Act (Cap 103, 2000 Rev Ed). The respondent was subsequently released on bail of $100,000 pending committal proceedings. The committal proceedings were held on 9 and 12 December 2011, and 2 to 3 February 2012. On 10 February 2012 the Magistrate committed the respondent to prison pending extradition to the United States of America and allowed the respondent's application to continue to be on bail after the committal order.

2 The Public Prosecutor applied before me to revoke the order for bail pending extradition. Deputy Public Prosecutor Mr Mark Jayaratnam submitted...