Fatimah bte Kumin Lim v Attorney-General: Extradition, Bail Application, Criminal Procedure Code
In Fatimah bte Kumin Lim v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore heard an application for bail by Fatimah bte Kumin Lim, who was the subject of an extradition request from the United Kingdom for alleged theft. The court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, dismissed the application, holding that the High Court's power to grant bail in extradition proceedings is circumscribed by section 95(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for bail dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court considered an application for bail in extradition proceedings, focusing on the interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fatimah bte Kumin Lim | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Thong Chee Kun, Hamidul Haq, Istyana Ibrahim, Wong Shi Yun |
Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Won | Kow Keng Siong, Luke Tan |
3. Judges
Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
---|---|---|
Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
Counsel Name | Organization |
---|---|
Thong Chee Kun | Rajah & Tann LLP |
Hamidul Haq | Rajah & Tann LLP |
Istyana Ibrahim | Rajah & Tann LLP |
Wong Shi Yun | Rajah & Tann LLP |
Kow Keng Siong | Attorney-General's Chambers |
Luke Tan | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant was the subject of an extradition request from the UK for alleged offences under s 1 of the Theft Act 1968 (UK).
- A warrant for the arrest of the Applicant was issued by the Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court on 3 May 2012.
- A warrant of apprehension was issued under s 24 of the Extradition Act on 21 May 2013, and the Applicant was arrested on the same day.
- The Applicant was initially employed by Mariam Aziz as a badminton coach and later became her bodyguard and personal assistant.
- The Applicant borrowed two diamonds from Mariam Aziz’s daughter, Afifa Abdullah, and allegedly sold the originals after arranging for copies to be made.
- The diamonds were purchased by a third party on 23 December 2009 for US$7,083,972.86.
- The deception was uncovered when Mariam Aziz asked for the ‘blue diamond’ to be resized and it was discovered to be counterfeit.
5. Formal Citations
- Fatimah bte Kumin Lim v Attorney-General, Criminal Motion No 30 of 2013, [2013] SGHC 232
6. Timeline
Date | Event |
---|---|
Applicant employed by Mariam Aziz as badminton coach. | |
Applicant borrowed diamonds from Afifa Abdullah. | |
Diamonds handed to Applicant. | |
Diamonds purchased by third party. | |
Warrant for arrest of Applicant issued by Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court. | |
Disposition sworn at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court. | |
Warrant of apprehension issued under s 24 of the Extradition Act; Applicant arrested. | |
Applicant filed application to be released on bail. | |
Application for bail dismissed. | |
Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Bail Application
- Outcome: The court held that the High Court's power to grant bail in extradition proceedings is circumscribed by s 95(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 4 SLR 868
- [2012] 3 SLR 749
- Interpretation of Statutes
- Outcome: The court considered the principles of statutory interpretation in determining the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Bail
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
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 | Discusses the High Court's power to grant bail under s 97(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and whether it is fettered by s 95(1). |
Christanto Radius v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 749 | Singapore | Deals with an application for bail in extradition proceedings and the High Court's power to grant bail under s 97 CPC 2010. |
S Selvamsylvester v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 409 | Singapore | Considers whether bail can be offered for all offences, including those punishable with death or imprisonment for life, under the Criminal Procedure Code. |
King Emperor v Nga San Htwa and others | Full Bench | Yes | AIR 1927 Rangoon 205 | India | Discusses the extent to which a court's discretion to release an accused on bail is fettered by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. |
Emperor v Joglekar and others | Full Bench | Yes | AIR 1931 All 504 | India | Deals with the discretion of the High Court or the Court of Session to admit an accused person to bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure. |
Gurcharan Singh & Ors v State (Delhi Administration) | Supreme Court | Yes | 1978 AIR 179 | India | Involves the revocation of bail previously granted and the applicable law under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
Re K S Menon | High Court | Yes | [1946] 12 MLJ 49 | Malaysia | Deals with the discretion of a judge of the High Court to grant bail free from the limitations of the Criminal Procedure Code. |
Shanmugam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1971] 1 MLJ 283 | Malaysia | Discusses the power of a president or magistrate to grant bail under the Criminal Procedure Code. |
Public Prosecutor v Dato Balwant Singh (No 1) | High Court | Yes | [2002] 4 MLJ 427 | Malaysia | Concerns the medical exception in the Criminal Procedure Code and whether the prohibited circumstances for granting bail arose. |
Wright v Henkel | Supreme Court | Yes | 190 US 40 (1903) | United States of America | Deals with the admission to bail in cases of foreign extradition and the obligations of the government to surrender the accused. |
Thomas Beaulieu v James Hartigan | United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts | Yes | 430 F Supp 915 (1977) | United States of America | Deals with the granting of bail pending completion of extradition proceedings. |
Thomas Beaulieu v James Hartigan | United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit | Yes | 554 F 2d 1 (1st Cir, 1977) | United States of America | Deals with the granting of bail pending completion of extradition proceedings. |
Parretti v US | United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit | Yes | 122 F 3d 758 (9th Cir, 1997) | United States of America | Deals with the granting of bail pending completion of extradition proceedings. |
United Mexican States v Cabal | High Court | Yes | [2001] HCA 60 | Australia | Deals with the granting of bail pending completion of extradition proceedings. |
Vasiljkovic v Commonwealth | High Court | Yes | [2006] HCA 40 | Australia | Deals with the granting of bail pending completion of extradition proceedings. |
Sek Kon Kim v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [1984] 1 MLJ 60 | Malaysia | Deals with the granting of bail pending completion of extradition proceedings. |
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 |
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
Theft Act 1968 (c 60) | United Kingdom |
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extradition
- Bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Warrant of Apprehension
- Fugitive
- Presumption of Innocence
- Special Circumstances
- Extradition Act
- Committal Hearing
15.2 Keywords
- Extradition
- Bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Singapore
- High Court
- Fugitive
- Theft
- Diamonds
16. Subjects
- Extradition
- Criminal Law
- Bail
- Statutory Interpretation
17. Areas of Law
- Extradition Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Constitutional Law