The appellant, a citizen of Afghanistan, was wanted by the Australian Government to face prosecution in Australia for the offences under the Australian Migration Act 1958. Following his arrest by the Malaysian Police, an application for the appellant's extradition was made by the prosecution in the Sessions Court. The application was allowed and the appellant was thence committed to prison pending an extradition order by the Minister pursuant to s. 20(1) of the Extradition Act 1992 ('the Extradition Act') and article 4(6) of the relevant extradition treaty between the Governments of Malaysia and Australia ('the Treaty'). The appellant argued that his arrest and detention was unlawful, and in the circumstances applied to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus for his eventual release from prison. The application was dismissed by the learned High Court judge and the appellant appealed. Before the Federal Court, the appellant essentially argued that s. 20 of the Extradition Act and art. 4(6) of the Treaty, by dispensing with prima facie proof, were draconian in nature and had actually deprived him of his fundamental right to a fair trial. It was further submitted that the prosecution and the Government of Australia had both failed to properly and adequately prove his identity, as proof by way of a photo board, which they had preferred in the present case, was weak and primitive and ought to be rejected by the court.

Held (dismissing appeal)

Per Raus Sharif PCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) There was no merit in the contention that s. 20 of the Extradition Act and art. 4(6) of the Treaty were draconian provisions which had deprived the appellant of his fundamental right to a fair trial. An extradition proceeding is in the nature of a committal proceeding to determine whether the evidence adduced is sufficient to commit the appellant for the purpose of extradition - and not a trial to determine the guilt of the appellant. As was said in Kindler v. Canada (Ministry of Justice) 'extradition proceeding is founded on concepts of comity and reciprocity. It would undermine the effectiveness of the international treaty obligations if the courts were to superimpose directions based on local notions of fairness upon the ordinary rules of admissibility'. (paras 15 & 17)

(2) While s. 20 of the Extradition Act may not have the usual safeguard as that of a trial, and may appear "draconian", the question whether the provision is 'harsh or unjust' is a question of policy to be debated and decided in the Parliament and not for judicial determination (Loh Kooi Choon v. Government of Malaysia). Section 20 of the Extradition Act, in any case, has been drafted in a comprehensive way which enables both the prosecution and the defence to be heard fairly. It lays down the need for the prosecution to provide the supporting documents in relation to the request for extradition. It also stipulates the necessity for the Sessions Court Judge to be satisfied that the alleged act or omission of the fugitive criminal would if it had taken place in Malaysia constitute an offence under the laws of Malaysia, and further provides for the defence that could be raised by the fugitive criminal. It is therefore not true to say that there is no rule or procedure that needs to be followed in extradition. (paras 18 & 19)

(3) If there was anything unsatisfactory about the identification by photo board, it was a matter for the Sessions Court Judge to decide. It was for him to decide whether the photo board was sufficient to commit the appellant for trial in Australia. In the present case, the High Court Judge was right in not interfering with the decision of the Sessions Court Judge and there was no reason for this court to disagree. (para 22)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Perayu, seorang rakyat Afghanistan, dikehendaki oleh Kerajaan Australia bagi menghadapi dakwaan di Australia atas beberapa kesalahan di bawah Akta Imigresen Australia 1958. Ekoran penangkapan perayu oleh Polis Malaysia, suatu permohonan di Mahkamah Sesyen bagi mengektradisi perayu telah dibuat oleh pihak pendakwaan. Permohonan tersebut telah dibenarkan dan perayu dengan itu telah dikomit ke penjara sementara menunggu perintah ekstradisi oleh Menteri di bawah s. 20(1) Akta Ektradisi 1992 ('Akta Ekstradisi') dan perkara 4(6) kepada perjanjian ekstradisi yang dimeterai antara Kerajaan Malaysia dan Australia ('Perjanjian'). Perayu mendakwa bahawa penangkapan dan penahanannya adalah salah di sisi undang-undang dan berikutan itu telah memfailkan satu permohonan habeas corpus di Mahkamah Tinggi bagi pembebasannya dari penjara. Permohonan tersebut ditolak oleh yang arif hakim Mahkamah Tinggi dan perayu merayu. Di Mahkamah Persekutuan, perayu secara asasnya menghujahkan bahawa s. 20 Akta Ekstradisi dan fasal 4(6) Perjanjian, oleh sebab tidak menggunapakai pembuktian prima facie, adalah satu peruntukan yang amat keras dan telah sebenarnya menafikan hak keperlembagaannya untuk mendapatkan perbicaraan yang adil. Dihujahkan selanjutnya bahawa kedua-dua pihak pendakwaan dan Kerajaan Australia telah gagal membuktikan identitinya dan bahawa pembuktian melalui papan gambar, seperti yang dipilih oleh mereka dalam kes ini, adalah lemah dan primitif dan seharusnya ditolak oleh mahkamah.

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan)

Oleh Raus Sharif PMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Tiada merit dalam hujahan bahawa s. 20 Akta Ekstradisi dan fasal 4(6) Perjanjian adalah peruntukan yang keras yang telah menafikan hak keperlembagaan perayu untuk mendapatkan perbicaraan yang adil. Prosiding ekstradisi adalah berbentuk prosiding komital bagi menentukan sama ada keterangan yang dikemukakan mencukupi untuk mengkomit perayu bagi maksud ekstradisi - dan bukannya suatu perbicaraan bagi menentukan kebersalahan perayu. Seperti yang dinyatakan dalam Kindler v. Canada (Ministry of Justice) 'prosiding ekstradisi adalah berlandaskan konsep keihsananan dan timbal balik. Ia akan menjejaskan keberkesanan obligasi perjanjian antarabangsa jika mahkamah menindihkan arahan-arahan yang berasaskan konsep keadilan setempat ke atas kaedah-kaedah biasa penerimaan-masuk'.

(2) Walaupun s. 20 Akta Ekstradisi mungkin tidak mempunyai perlindungan-perlindungan yang biasa ada dalam sesuatu perbicaraan, persoalan sama ada peruntukan 'keras atau tidak adil' adalah persoalan polisi yang perlu dibahas dan diputuskan oleh Parlimen dan bukannya untuk pemutusan kehakiman (Loh Kooi Choon v. Government of Malaysia). Seksyen 20 Akta Ekstradisi, walau apapun, telah digubal secara komprehensif sekaligus membenarkan kedua-dua pendakwaan dan pembelaan dibicarakan dengan adil. Ia meletakkan asas keperluan bagi pendakwaan mengemukakan dokumen-dokumen sokongan berhubung dengan permohonan ekstradisi. Ia juga memperuntukkan keperluan bagi hakim Mahkamah Sesyen memuaskan hatinya bahawa perbuatan atau ketinggalan yang didakwa terhadap penjenayah pelarian tersebut, jika ia berlaku di Malaysia, akan melanggar undang-undang Malaysia, dan seterusnya memperuntukkan pembelaan-pembelaan yang boleh dibangkitkan oleh penjenayah pelarian terbabit. Oleh itu adalah tidak benar untuk mengatakan bahawa tiada kaedah atau prosedur yang perlu diikuti dalam ekstradisi.

(3) Jika wujud apa-apa yang tidak memuaskan mengenai identifikasi melalui papan gambar, ia adalah satu perkara yang perlu diputuskan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. Beliaulah yang perlu memutuskan sama ada papan gambar tersebut memadai untuk mengkomit perayu untuk dibicarakan di Australia. Dalam kes semasa, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi betul dalam tidak mengganggu keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dan tiada alasan untuk mahkamah ini tidak bersetuju dengannya.

Case(s) referred to:

Chua Han Mow v. Superintendent of Pudu Prison [1979] 1 LNS 14 FC (refd)

Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice) [1991] 84 DLR (4th) 438 (refd)

Loh Kooi Choon v. Government of Malaysia [1975] 1 LNS 205 FC (refd)

R v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte Voets [1986] 2 All ER 630 (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Extradition Act 1992, ss. 4, 13(1)(b), 16(1), 20(1)

Migration Act 1958 [Aust], ss. 233A, 233C

Counsel:

For the appellant - Karpal Singh; M/s Karpal Singh & Co

For the respondent - Noorin Badaruddin (Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar & Kamal Bahrin with her); SFCs

[Appeal from High Court, Kuala Lumpur; Criminal Application No: 44-6-01-2012]

Reported by Wan Sharif Ahmad

---

---