The Right to Bail in Extradition Proceedings: Malaysia's Criminal Law Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.Vol9.Iss1.3914.pp1-21Keywords:
Bail pending extradition, Considerations for bail, Malaysia, Presumption against bail, Special circumstancesAbstract
This article delves into the issue of bail pending extradition in Malaysia. It adopts a doctrinal legal research methodology, focusing on analysing legislation and court decisions to objectively understand how current laws and practices determine bail applications within the context of Malaysian extradition law. The study reveals that Malaysia's Extradition Act 1992 does not explicitly provide for bail pending extradition, except under limited circumstances. Malaysian courts have utilised section 44 of the Extradition Act 1992 to apply bail provisions from the Criminal Procedure Code. The study finds that Malaysian courts adopt a cautious approach when determining bail applications in extradition cases. However, this judicial approach presents challenges, particularly in extradition cases involving offences governed by specific statutes other than the Criminal Procedure Code. The findings suggest that the reliance on section 44 should be re-evaluated to address these challenges. The article concludes by recommending further research to assess the need for an explicit and comprehensive provision for bail in the Extradition Act 1992 to ensure legal consistency and a uniform application across all types of offences.References
Abdul Patah, Farah Marsita. "Dua Ditahan Hingga Ekstradisi Ke As." Berita Harian, December 15, 2020. https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/kes/2020/12/765260/dua-ditahan-hingga-ekstradisi-ke.
Abu Backer, Hamid Sultan. Janab's Key to Criminal Procedure. 4th ed. Kuala Lumpur: Janab (M) Sdn. Bhd., 2018.
Andrew s/o Thamboosamy v Superintendant of Pudu Prisons, Kuala Lumpur [1976] 2 MLJ 156.
Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Act 613) (Malaysia).
Attorney General’s Department of Australia. A New Extradition System: A Review of Australia’s Extradition Law and Practice. Canberra: Attorney General’s Department of Australia, 2005. Cited in Clara Spencer, "Reflections on the Effectiveness of Extradition in the ASEAN Region." In Cross-Border Law Enforcement: Regional Law Enforcement Cooperation - European, Australian and Asia-Pacific Perspectives, edited by Saskia Hufnagel, Clive Harfield and Simon Bronitt. Abingdon Oxon: Routledge, 2012.
Bassiouni, M. C. International Extradition: United States Law and Practice. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Che Su binti Daud v Public Prosecutor [1978] 2 MLJ 162.
Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) (Malaysia).
Computer Crimes Act 1997 (Act 563) (Malaysia).
Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor [1991] 1 MLJ 321.
Dobbins, Jeffrey C. "The Inherent and Supervisory Power." Georgia Law Review 54, no. 2 (2020): 411-62. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3395460.
Extradition Act 1999 (Act 479) (Malaysia).
Federal Constitution (Malaysia).
Fougere, Joshua J. "Let’s Try This Again: Reassessing the Right to Bail in Cases of International Extradition." Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 42, no. 2 (2008): 177-224. https://jlsp.law.columbia.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/213/files/2017/03/42-Fougere.pdf.
Hall, Jeffrey A. "A Recommended Approach to Bail in International Extradition Cases." Michigan Law Review 86, no. 3 (1987): 599-619. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol86/iss3/4.
Hamzah, Wan Arfah. “Set Kon Kim V. Officer In Charge, Cheras Police Station Reflections On The Malaysian Law Of Extradition - Legislation and Judicial Decision.†Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law 12, no. 1 (1985): 245–50. https://ejournal.um.edu.my/index.php/JMCL/article/view/15960.
Hangzo, Pau Khan Khup. The Arms Trade Treaty: Implications for Southeast Asia. RSIS Commentaries No. 106. Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, 2013.
Iraola, Roberto. "The Federal Common Law of Bail in International Extradition Proceedings." Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 17, no. 1 (2007): 29-48. https://journals.indianapolis.iu.edu/index.php/ iiclr/article/view/17526/17623.
Loy Chin Hei v Public Prosecutor [1981] CLJ (Rep) 178.
Majid, Mimi Kamariah. Criminal Procedure in Malaysia. 3rd ed. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1999.
Majid, Mimi Kamariah and Oi Kuan Lee. Malaysian Law on Bail. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Law Publishers, 1986.
Malaysia. Parliamentary Debates. Dewan Rakyat. October 30, 1991. https://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DR-30101991.pdf.
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (Act 694) (Malaysia).
Mallal, Bashir Ahmad. Mallal's Criminal Procedure 8th ed. Edited by James Foong Cheng Yuen and Zainun Ali. Kuala Lumpur: Lexis Nexis Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., 2020.
Manickam & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1982] 1 MLJ 227.
Mat Saad, Hasbollah, Maizatul Azila Chee Din and Mohd Azizie Abdul Aziz. Criminal and Constitutional Law in Malaysia: A Comparative Approach. Rev. ed. Bukit Beruang, Melaka: Pena Hijrah Resources, 2016.
Md Saman, Mazura and Jamal Rodzi Dahari. "Bail and the Principle of Generalibus Specialia Derogant in the Malaysian Military Justice System." ZULFAQAR Journal of Defence Management, Social Science & Humanities 4, no. 1 (2021): 69-73. https://doi.org/10.58247/jdmssh-2021-0401-08.
Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Anor v Seyed Ramin Paknejad [2017] 4 CLJ 541.
Michael Lee @ Weng Onn Lee v Public Prosecutor [1999] 1 MLJ 171.
Moh Ting King v Public Prosecutor [1995] 3 MLJ 461.
Mohamed Yasid, Amer Fawwaz. "Drug Trafficking from Thailand's Golden Triangle Region and Its Implications on Malaysia's Political Security." Journal of International Studies 19, no. 2 (2023): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.32890/jis2023.19.2.1.
Mohd Ali, Ahmad Johari. "Dua Lelaki Dikehendaki Doj Berjaya Cabar Perintah Ekstradisi." Berita Harian, January 26, 2023. https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/kes/2023/01/1056408/dua-lelaki-dikehendaki-doj-berjaya-cabar-perintah-ekstradisi.
Ng Chong Hwa v Public Prosecutor [2019] 1 CLJ 823.
Office of Public Affairs (U.S. Department of Justice), "Seven International Cyber Defendants, Including ‘Apt41’ Actors, Charged in Connection with Computer Intrusion Campaigns against More Than 100 Victims Globally." Accessed January 24, 2024, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/seven-international-cyber-defendants-including-apt41-actors-charged-connection-computer.
Penal Code (Act 574) (Malaysia).
Persily, Nathaniel A. "International Extradition and the Right to Bail." Stanford Journal of International Law 34 (1998): 407-42. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8N306DT/download.
Public Prosecutor v Chew Siew Luan [1982] CLJ (Rep) 285.
Public Prosecutor v Dato Balwant Singh [2002] 4 CLJ 155.
Public Prosecutor v Dato Mat Shah [1991] 2 CLJ 1112.
Public Prosecutor v Leong Ying Ming [1993] 2 CLJ 143.
Public Prosecutor v Lin Chien Pang Aka "Teacher Lin" "Saenwoo Asue" [1993] 2 CLJ 225.
Public Prosecutor v Wee Swee Siang [1948] MLJ 114.
Public Prosecutor v Ottavio Quattrocchi [2003] 2 CLJ 613.
Re Meenal w/o Muniyandi [1980] 2 MLJ 299.
Sadoff, David A. Bringing International Fugitives to Justice: Extradition and Its Alternatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Sathiaseelan, Joshua Kevin, Wie Mun Leng and Damien Chan. Criminal Procedure and Practice in Malaysia. Ampang: CLJ Publication, 2021.
Sek Kon Kim v Attorney-General [1984] 1 MLJ 60.
Set Kon Kim v Officer in Charge, Ceras Police Station [1984] 1 MLJ 73.
Shearer, Ivan A. Extradition in International Law. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1971.
Starke, J. G. Introduction to International Law. 10th ed. London: Butterworth & Co, 1989.
Syahmin AK and Fidelia. "The International Cooperation to Eradicate Illicit Firearms Trafficking in Southeast Asian Region." Sriwijaya Law Review 2, no. 2 (2018): 183-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.28946/slrev.Vol2.Iss2.121.pp183-192.
Tan Hock Chan v Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors [1994] 2 CLJ 286.
Valenstein, Carl A. "The Right to Bail in United States Extradition Proceedings." Michigan Journal of International Law 4, no. 1 (1983): 107-21. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol4/iss1/5.
Van Alstyne, William W. "The Role of Congress in Determining Incidental Powers of the President and of the Federal Courts: A Comment on the Horizontal Effect of the Sweeping Clause." Law and Contemporary Problems 40 (1976): 102-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1191373.
Wright v Henkel 190 U.S. 40 (1903).
Yusof bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor [1995] 3 MLJ 66.
