Singapore

The applicant, detained in Singapore pending committal proceedings pursuant to an Indonesian extradition request concerning alleged corruption offences, sought bail pending extradition proceedings, together with disclosure of documents and permission to rely on Indonesian expert evidence. The High Court held that the bail application had been brought through the wrong procedural vehicle and, in any event, that the applicant did not fall within any of the limited statutory circumstances in which bail may be granted to a fugitive under Singapore law. The Court also dismissed the requests for disclosure and expert evidence, holding that the underlying challenges concerning the Indonesian arrest-warrant documents were more appropriately addressed in the pending committal proceedings. The application was dismissed in its entirety, without determining whether the applicant should ultimately be extradited to Indonesia.

The case concerned a Singaporean requested person arrested in Singapore pursuant to a request by the United States in relation to alleged securities fraud and money laundering offences. Pending the extradition proceedings, the requested person sought release on bail on the ground that he was “sick or infirm”, relying on a serious eye condition and a history of bipolar disorder, and arguing that prison medical facilities were inadequate. The High Court held that the relevant threshold was not satisfied, as the medical evidence showed that the conditions either required no ongoing specialist management or could reasonably be managed by the Singapore Prison Service. The Court also considered, for completeness, that there was a real risk of flight given the seriousness of the charges and the prospect of extradition, and therefore dismissed the application for bail

The case concerned a fugitive arrested in Singapore pursuant to an extradition request by Indonesia in relation to an alleged corruption offence. The requested person applied for bail pending extradition proceedings, arguing that he was “sick or infirm” due to age and multiple medical conditions, and that those words should be given their ordinary meaning. The High Court held that, in extradition cases, the “sick or infirm” exception applies only where the fugitive suffers from a condition that cannot reasonably be managed safely by the Singapore Prison Service. Since the applicant’s conditions were stable and manageable in custody, and since there was in any event a real risk of flight, the Court dismissed the bail application

The requested person applied for bail while awaiting a committal hearing on the United Kingdom’s request for her extradition for alleged theft offences. The High Court held that its power to grant bail under section 97(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code was circumscribed by the express prohibition applicable to persons arrested under the Extradition Act in section 95(1)(c). Bail remained possible only within the limited statutory exception for juveniles or sick or infirm persons, and the general High Court provision could not be used to circumvent that restriction. The Court added that, even assuming a broader statutory or inherent power existed, bail in extradition proceedings should be granted only for special reasons; as none were established, the application was dismissed.