Christanto Radius v Public Prosecutor: Extradition, Bail, and Criminal Procedure Code
The High Court of Singapore, in Christanto Radius v Public Prosecutor, on 24 May 2012, reviewed the District Judge's decision to deny bail to Christanto Radius, who was facing extradition to Australia on charges of conspiracy to bribe a foreign public official. The High Court examined whether it had the power to grant bail under the Criminal Procedure Code or its inherent jurisdiction, ultimately concluding that it did possess such power and granting bail to Mr. Radius with specific conditions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Bail granted to the applicant, Christanto Radius, at $2,000,000 in two sureties, with specific conditions.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court reviewed the denial of bail for Christanto Radius, facing extradition to Australia, and examined the court's power to grant bail.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Bail Granted to Applicant | Lost | Kow Keng Siong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Diane Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Christanto Radius | Applicant | Individual | Bail Granted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kow Keng Siong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Diane Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Quek Mong Hua | Lee & Lee |
| Hamidul Haq | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Julian Tay | Lee & Lee |
| Istyana Ibrahim | Rajah & Tann LLP |
4. Facts
- Mr. Christanto is wanted by Australia for conspiracy to bribe a foreign public official.
- A warrant for Mr. Christanto's apprehension was issued on 3 May 2012.
- Mr. Christanto's application for bail was denied by the District Judge on 4 May 2012.
- Mr. Christanto cooperated with Singapore authorities in their investigations.
- Mr. Christanto has substantial assets and family ties in Singapore.
- Mr. Christanto suffers from several heart ailments.
5. Formal Citations
- Christanto Radius v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 31 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 114
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Christanto contacted by the Corruption Prevention Investigation Bureau. | |
| Mr. Christanto required to post bail of $10,000. | |
| Mr. Christanto required to provide two sureties and bail amount increased to $200,000. | |
| Australian authorities requested Mr. Christanto's apprehension. | |
| Warrant for apprehension made. | |
| Mr. Christanto's application for bail denied by the District Judge. | |
| Mr. Christanto attended at the CPIB. | |
| Mr. Christanto directed to be transferred to Changi Hospital. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Power to Grant Bail in Extradition Proceedings
- Outcome: The High Court held that it has the power to grant bail to fugitives facing extradition proceedings, either under s 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 or by invoking its inherent jurisdiction.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- High Court's power to review a Magistrate's refusal of bail
- Interpretation of s 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010
- Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail
8. Remedies Sought
- Bail
9. Cause of Actions
- Extradition
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Extradition Proceedings
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 868 | Singapore | Cited to support the proposition that the High Court's discretion under s 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 is unfettered by s 95(1) of the same code, which applies solely to the Subordinate Courts. |
| Amand v Home Secretary | N/A | Yes | [1943] AC 147 | England | Cited for the proposition that extradition proceedings can be characterised as criminal proceedings. |
| Zacharia v Republic of Cyprus | N/A | Yes | [1963] AC 634 | England | Cited for the proposition that extradition proceedings can be characterised as criminal proceedings. |
| Wright v Henkel | US Supreme Court | Yes | 190 US 40 (1903) | United States | Cited for the principle that courts possess inherent power to grant bail in extradition proceedings, but should only do so in exceptional circumstances. |
| United States of America v Terence Damien Kirby | California Court of Appeal | Yes | 106 F 3d 855 (9th Cir, 1996) | United States | Cited to support the existence of the court's power to grant bail in extradition proceedings based on Wright v Henkel. |
| Knowles and others v Superintendent of Her Majesty’s Prison Fox Hill and others | Privy Council | Yes | [2005] UKPC 17 | England | Cited to affirm the existence of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Bahamas to grant bail in extradition proceedings, based on the reasoning in R v Spilsbury. |
| R v Spilsbury | N/A | Yes | [1898] 2 QB 615 | England | Cited to support the principle that courts have inherent power to admit to bail, and that this power should not be curtailed or circumscribed without express enactment. |
| R v Rademeyer | Sydney Supreme Court | Yes | (1985) 59 ALR 141 | Australia | Cited as an example of a court rejecting the argument that State Supreme Courts or Federal Courts in Australia had any inherent power to grant bail in extradition proceedings. |
| Zoeller v Federal Republic of Germany | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1989) 90 ALR 161 | Australia | Cited to show that the High Court of Australia alluded to the existence of its inherent jurisdiction to grant bail in exceptional circumstances. |
| United Mexican States v Cabal and others | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2001] 209 CLR 165 | Australia | Cited to show that the High Court of Australia considered previous decisions which referred to the existence of the inherent jurisdiction to grant bail and found that the power to grant bail arose from s 73 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act rather than any inherent jurisdiction of the court. |
| In re Chong Bing Keung, Peter | Hong Kong Court of First Instance | Yes | [1998] HKCFI 351 | Hong Kong | Cited to affirm that the Hong Kong Court of First Instance could review the Magistrate’s order to refuse bail under s 9J(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. |
| Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v Robert Henry Cosby | Hong Kong Court of First Instance | Yes | [1999] HKCFI 944 | Hong Kong | Cited to affirm R v Spilsbury and held that as a superior court of unlimited jurisdiction it always has inherent jurisdiction to grant bail. |
| Re Mitchell | N/A | Yes | 171 F 289 (1909) | United States | Cited to affirm Wright v Henkel in holding that while the fugitive had a right to bail, bail would be granted “only in the most pressing circumstances, and when the requirements of justice are peremptory”. |
| In the Matter of Extradition of Nacif-Borge | N/A | Yes | 829 F Supp 1210 (D Nev 1993) | United States | Cited to note that bail has “usually” been denied in extradition proceedings. |
| Sek Kon Kim v Attorney – General | N/A | Yes | [1984] 1 MLJ 60 | Malaysia | Cited for the non-exhaustive factors that would be considered in a bail application for individuals facing extradition. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Yong Nam | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 45 | Singapore | Cited to clarify the court's earlier decision regarding the Magistrate's authority to grant bail after a warrant of committal has been granted. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Extradition Act (Cap 103, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) | Singapore |
| Australian Criminal Code Act 1995 (No 12 of 1995) | Australia |
| Extradition Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict c 52) | United Kingdom |
| Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 (44 & 45 Vict c 69) | United Kingdom |
| Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 (No 75 of 1966) | Australia |
| Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1996 (No 76 of 1966) | Australia |
| Bail Act 1976 (c 63) | United Kingdom |
| Extradition Act 2003 (c 41) | United Kingdom |
| Bail (Amendment) Act 2003 (c 26) | United Kingdom |
| Fugitive Criminals Act 1967 | Malaysia |
| Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6, enacted in 1935) | Malaysia |
| Extradition Ordinance 1958 | Malaysia |
| Extradition Act 1992 (Act 479) | Malaysia |
| Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (No 59 of 1977) | Australia |
| Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (No 156 of 1976) | Australia |
| Extradition Act 1988 (No 4 of 1988) | Australia |
| Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act | Australia |
| Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (Cap 503) | Hong Kong |
| Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) | Hong Kong |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extradition
- Bail
- Fugitive
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Inherent Jurisdiction
- Committal Hearing
- Warrant of Apprehension
15.2 Keywords
- Extradition
- Bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Singapore
- High Court
- Fugitive
- Extradition Act
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Extradition Law | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| International Law | 85 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Foreign Law | 60 |
| Private International Law | 40 |
| Penal Code | 30 |
| Public Prosecutor | 25 |
| Consent of Public Prosecutor | 25 |
| Asylum | 10 |
| Bankruptcy | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Extradition
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Bail