Hia Soo Gan Benson v PP: Extradition, Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction and Appeal
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard four related criminal motions filed by Hia Soo Gan Benson and Lim Kow Seng, who were committed to be extradited to the United States. The Court, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, V K Rajah JA, and Tay Yong Kwang J, dismissed all four motions on 9 November 2012, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the High Court's decision and denying leave to refer questions of law under s 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010. The High Court had previously dismissed their applications for review of detention. The Court of Appeal provided detailed reasons for its decision, affirming the extradition order.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
All four criminal motions dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed criminal motions for extradition to the US, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and denying leave to refer questions of law.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motions Dismissed | Won | Mark Jayaratnam of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jean Kua of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hia Soo Gan Benson | Applicant | Individual | Criminal motion dismissed | Lost | |
| Lim Kow Seng | Applicant | Individual | Criminal motion dismissed | Lost | |
| Lim Yong Nam | Other | Individual | |||
| Wong Yuh Lan | Other | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mark Jayaratnam | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jean Kua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hamidul Haq | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Istyana Putri Ibrahim | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Thong Chee Kun | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Wong Shi Yun | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Harpreet Singh Nehal | WongPartnership LLP |
| Jared Chen | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- The US sought the extradition of Hia and Seng for conspiracy to export defense articles without a license.
- Hia and Seng were accused of conspiring via email with individuals in the US to procure antennae in violation of US export regulations.
- The High Court dismissed Hia and Seng's applications for review of detention.
- Hia and Seng filed criminal motions seeking leave to raise questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal.
- Seng filed an appeal against the High Court's decision dismissing his application for an order for review of detention.
- The Court of Appeal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and denied leave to refer questions of law.
5. Formal Citations
- Hia Soo Gan Benson v Public Prosecutor and other matters, , [2013] SGCA 40
- Wong Yuh Lan v Public Prosecutor and other matters, , [2012] 4 SLR 845
- In the Matter of Wong Yuh Lan, Lim Yong Nam, Lim Kow Seng & Hia Soo Gan Benson, , [2012] SGDC 34
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| US District Court issued warrants of arrest against the Applicants. | |
| District Judge committed the Applicants to custody to await the warrant of the Minister for their surrender. | |
| Judge granted the Applicants leave for summonses for an order for review of detention to be issued. | |
| Seng filed an appeal against the Judge’s decision dismissing his application for an order for review of detention. | |
| Hia's wife attempted to file a notice of appeal. | |
| Court heard the Parties and the Prosecution. | |
| Court dismissed all four criminal motions. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the High Court's decision in an order for review of detention hearing.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Original criminal jurisdiction
- Appellate jurisdiction
- Right of Appeal in Extradition Cases
- Outcome: The Court held that s 12(2)(b) of the Extradition Act 2000 did not vest a right of appeal with the Parties and that s 422 of CPC 2010 prohibited an appeal by the Parties against the Judge’s decision not to issue an order for review of detention.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of Extradition Act
- Effect of Criminal Procedure Code
- Criminal Reference to the Court of Appeal
- Outcome: The Court dismissed the applications for leave to refer questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal, finding that the questions raised were either irrelevant or the application was filed out of time.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Requirements for granting leave
- Timeliness of application
- Double Criminality
- Outcome: The Court found that Seng misunderstood the principle of double criminality.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Transposition of Facts
- Elements of Offence
- Extraterritoriality
- Outcome: The Court held that the Judge did not apply s 109 of the PC extra-territorially.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of Penal Code
- Acts of Abetment
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for review of detention
- Leave to refer questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal
- Appeal against the High Court's decision
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy to defraud the United States
- Violation of US export regulations
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- International Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong Yuh Lan v Public Prosecutor and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 845 | Singapore | The decision from which this appeal arose. The High Court allowed the applications of Wong and Nam, holding that their detentions were unlawful and that they were to be released forthwith; but dismissed the applications of the Parties. |
| Regina v Baxter | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1972] 1 QB 1 | England and Wales | Relied on to hold that acts of abetment in the form of email correspondence sent to and received by a person in Singapore could be construed as having been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Singapore. |
| Kiew Ah Cheng David v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1188 | Singapore | Explained the distinction between original and appellate jurisdiction. |
| Re Onkar Shrian | High Court | Yes | [1968–1970] SLR(R) 533 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that submissions as to the validity of proceedings or the jurisdiction of the court should be made to the Magistrate’s Court in the first instance. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ottavio Quattrocchi | Federal Court | Yes | [2004] 3 MLJ 149 | Malaysia | Cited to show that there are clear statutory provisions providing for an appeal to the Federal Court against a decision of a High Court judge in a habeas corpus proceeding by the person sought to be extradited in Malaysia. |
| Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and other applications | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 966 | Singapore | Outlined the four requirements that have to be met before leave for a criminal reference will be granted. |
| Regina (Al-Fawwaz) v Governor of Brixton prison and Another | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 1 AC 556 | United Kingdom | Cited to explain what “the appropriate transposition of facts” meant in the context of double criminality. |
| Phang Wah v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 60 | Singapore | Reminded potential applicants to avoid back door appeals by recourse to s 397 of CPC 2010. |
| Rahmatullah v Secretary of State for Defence and another (JUSTICE intervening) | United Kingdom Supreme Court | Yes | [2013] 1 AC 614 | United Kingdom | Acknowledged the observation that the hearing of the application for the writ becomes the substantive hearing. |
| In Re Charles Ryskschroeff | Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements | Yes | [1879] KY 5 | Singapore | Established that a prisoner who was due to be extradited to Netherlands had no right of appeal against a decision “on a return to a writ of habeas corpus”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act No 15 of 2012) | Singapore |
| Extradition Act (Cap 103, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| United States Code Section 371 | United States |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Strategic Goods (Control) Act (Cap 300, 2003 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extradition
- Criminal motion
- Order for review of detention
- Jurisdiction
- Appeal
- Criminal reference
- Double criminality
- Extraterritoriality
- Abetment
- Conspiracy
- Fugitive
- Singapore-US Treaty
15.2 Keywords
- Extradition
- Criminal Procedure
- Jurisdiction
- Appeal
- Singapore
- United States
- Conspiracy
- Abetment
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Extradition Law | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| International Law | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Asset Recovery | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Extradition
- Criminal Law
- Jurisdiction
- Appeals
- Criminal Procedure