EXTRADITION PROCEDURES IN THE UK.

Many senior Malaysian lawyers, the Malaysian Bar Council Vice-President included, appear unable to comprehend how to ‘transfer’ my case to the UK and get me tried in a UK court. So that they do not continue embarrassing themselves by making silly statements, maybe I can assist them by giving them a short crash-course on how the system works. Consider this part of my community service.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Summary of the extradition procedure

1. Extradition requests from Malaysia should be made to the Secretary of State.
2. Some countries are not required to provide prima facie evidence in support of their request for extradition. Malaysia does not fall within this category so evidence will be required.
3. If the request is 'valid' the Secretary of State will issue a certificate and send the request to the court. If the court is satisfied that the request contains the required information an arrest warrant may be issued. It is sent to the police for execution.
4. After the person has been arrested, he is brought before the court as soon as is practicable and the judge sets a date for the extradition hearing.
5. The judge must satisfy himself that the request meets the requirements of the 2003 Act, including dual criminality and prima facie evidence of guilt, and that none of the bars to extradition apply.
6. Finally, the judge is required to decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with the convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998. If he decides all of these questions in the affirmative, he must send the case to the Secretary of State for the latter’s decision whether the person is to be extradited. Otherwise, he must discharge the person.
7. The condition of “speciality” requires that the person must be dealt with in the requesting state only for the offences in respect of which the person is extradited and for no other charges other than that.
   

*************************************************

FURTHER READING

On 1 January 2004, the Extradition Act 2003 came into force. Requests made on or after 1 January 2004 are dealt with under the 2003 Act.

However, with the exception of Gibraltar, unless or until the Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories amend their legislation, the Extradition Act 1989 (the legislation repealed by the Extradition Act 2003) will still apply to them. Currently, only Jersey has enacted its own extradition legislation.

Extradition relations with category 1 territories are governed by part 1 of the 2003 Act. Part 1 implemented the framework decision on the European arrest warrant (EAW). The Secretary of State has no role in these proceedings.

Extradition Partners under the EAW

Territories designated as category 1 territories as of 2 August 2007 are:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

Territories under part 2

Territories designated under part 2 are non-EU members of the European Convention on Extradition; or the London Schememe for Extradition within the Commonwealth; or else they are parties to bilateral extradition treaties with the UK. The countries involved are:

Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cook Islands, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Macedonia (FYR), Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Western Samoa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Extradition request

Extradition requests from category 2 territories to the United Kingdom should be made to the Secretary of State. If the request is 'valid' the Secretary of State will issue a certificate and send the request to the court. The request is valid if it states that it is a request for a person accused or convicted of an offence and it is made by an appropriate authority of the requesting territory such as a diplomatic or consular representative.

Documentation require

Generally the information required to accompany the request will include:

1. particulars of the person whose return is requested
2. particulars of the offence of which he is accused or was convicted
3. in the case of a person accused of an offence, a warrant or a duly authenticated copy of a warrant for his arrest issued in the requesting state, or for a provisional arrest, details of such a warrant
4. in the case of a person unlawfully at large after conviction of an offence, a certificate or a duly authenticated copy of a certificate of the conviction and the sentence, or for provisional arrest, details of the conviction
5. evidence or information that would justify the issue of a warrant for arrest in the UK, within the jurisdiction of a judge of the court that would hold the extradition hearing.
   

If the court is satisfied that the request contains the required information an arrest warrant may be issued. It is sent to the police for execution.

Requesting states are advised to submit a draft request to the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure potential difficulties are resolved before the request is finally submitted

Evidence require

Some countries are not required to provide prima facie evidence in support of their request for extradition. These countries are (as of 1 January 2007):

Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Macedonia FYR, Moldova, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Russian Federation, Serbia, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United States of America.

Preliminary hearing

After the person has been arrested, he is brought before the court as soon as is practicable and the judge sets a date for the extradition hearing.

Extradition hearing

The judge must satisfy himself that the request meets the requirements of the 2003 Act, including dual criminality and where appropriate, prima facie evidence of guilt; and that none of the bars to extradition apply (the rule against double jeopardy; extraneous considerations; passage of time or hostage-taking considerations).

Finally, he is required to decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with the convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998. If he decides all of these questions in the affirmative, he must send the case to the Secretary of State for the latter’s decision whether the person is to be extradited. Otherwise, he must discharge the person.

Secretary of State

Where a case is sent to the Secretary of State she must consider whether surrender is prohibited because:

1. the person could face the death penalty: This is an absolute prohibition unless the Secretary of State receives an adequate written assurance from the requesting state that the death penalty will not be imposed, or will not be carried out, if imposed
2. there are no speciality arrangements with the requesting country: The condition of “speciality” requires that the person must be dealt with in the requesting state only for the offences in respect of which the person is extradited (except in certain limited circumstances)
3. the person was earlier extradited to the UK: this might require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the earlier extraditing country, before the person can be extradited on to the requesting state.
   

With effect from 15 January 2007, the defence has to make any representations within four weeks of the case being sent to the Secretary of State (28 days, including the day on which the case was sent). The Secretary of State’s decision has to be made within eight weeks of the day the case is sent to him, otherwise the person may apply to be discharged. This equalises the time within which representations must be made to the Secretary of State with the time in which the Secretary of State has to consider those representations, (previously, the defence had six weeks to submit representations.)

However, if the representations are complex and require enquiries being made of the requesting state, the Secretary of State may apply to the High Court for an extension of the decision date, of any length but usually of no more than two months – it is a matter for the court as to whether and for how long this is granted, although it has not to date refused any such application. More than one extension may be sought in any one case; and granted if it appears necessary.

If the Secretary of State does find that surrender is prohibited, she must order the discharge of the person. If none of the three prohibitions apply, or appropriate assurances have been given, the Secretary of State must order the person to be extradited.

KENAPA PAS TIDAK GEMPUR PREMISES JUAL ROKOK

PAS sebelum ini telahpun menyatakan bantahan terhadap keputusan kerajaan meluluskan pemberian lesen judi bola sepak kepada Ascot Sports, syarikat milik Tan Sri Vincent Tan dan juga telah menghantar memorandum kepada Mufti- Mufti Negeri serta memohon campurtangan kebawah duli Raja-Raja Melayu. Terkini, hari ini, Dewan Pemuda PAS mengambil tindakan lebih drastik untuk “gempur” premises judi.

Mengikut berita yang disiarkan dalam laman web www.harakahdaily.net, Ketua Dewan Pemuda PAS memaklumkan bahawa (ahli) pemuda PAS akan ditempatkan disemua premises judi diseluruh negara dan akan bergilir shif mengedarkan risalah kepada pengunjung dan tindakan ini akan berterusan sehingga kerajaan membatalkan judi bola sepak.

Saya kesal dengan tindakan yang diambil PAS yang juga secara tidak langsung campurtangan dengan hal-ehwal orang bukan Melayu dan bukan Islam.

Jika PAS yang membantah pemberian lesen judi bolasepak sehingga mahu menggempur premises judi dan mengacau pengunjung ke premises judi yang telah di lesenkan kerajaan, mengapa PAS tidak mengambil tindakan yang sama ke atas premises dan kedai-kedai yang menjual rokok dan atau menangkap orang Islam dan Melayu yang merokok. Paling kurang pun mengapa ahli-ahli PAS tidak diarahkan berdiri ditempat-tempat ini secara shif bergilir mengedar risalah ?

Saya terpanggil untuk bertanya kerana, muzakarah Jawatankuasa Fatwa Majlis Kebangsaan Hal Ehwal Islam Malaysia ke-37 pada 23 Mac 1995 memutuskan bahawa amalan merokok adalah haram menurut Islam. Berdasarkan fatwa ini, merokok adalah HARAM. Malahan saya dimaklumkan ada juga beberapa negeri yang telah menggazetkan fatwa ini.

Selanjutnya, izinkan saya untuk memberi sedikit fakta tentang gejala rokok yang boleh merangsangkan PAS untuk menggempur kedai-kedai yang menjual rokok. Pada tahun 2006, rakyat Malaysia membelanjakan kira-kira RM3 juta sehari atau RM90 juta sebulan membeli rokok. Kira-kira 10,000 daripada empat rakyat Malaysia yang merokok mati setiap tahun antara lain kerana barah paru-paru dan lain-lain sakit kronik yang berpunya dari tabiat merokok. Asap dan kandungan rokok didapati mengandungi 4000 jenis bahan kimia dan 60 daripadanya penyebab utama kanser. Kajian Persatuan Pengguna Pulau Pinang mendapati 45-50 remaja mula merokok setiap hari dan 8% daripada mereka adalah pelajar sekolah.

Pernahkah PAS bertanya berapakah peratusan orang Islam dan Melayu yang merokok. Berapakah jumlah yang dibelanjakan wang sehari atau sebulan membeli rokok oleh orang Islam dan Melayu. Berapakah peratusan orang Islam dan Melayu yang meninggal dunia kerana sakit barah paru-paru dan lain-lain kesakitan yang disebabkan dari merokok. Teringat juga firman Allah yang bermaksud “Dan janganlah kamu menjatuhkan dirimu sendiri ke dalam kebinasaan” (al-Baqarah : ayat 195). Juga, sabda Rasullah yang bermaksud “ Tidak boleh (menimbulkan) bahaya dan juga tidak boleh merbahayakan (orang lain) (Hadis Riwayat Ibnu Majah).

Kenapa PAS berdiam diri dalam isu rokok dan merokok? Tidak kelihatan dan atau mendengar tentang tindakan-tindakan drastik yang diambil menangani isu rokok dan terhadap perokok. Kenapa Ketua Dewan Pemuda PAS tidak mengarahkan ahli-ahli PAS untuk menggempur kedai-kedai runcit, kedai makan mamak ataupun kedai serbanika seperti 7-11. Kenapa tidak ditempatkan ahli-ahli bergilir shif berdiri diluar kedai-kedai ini ? Kenapa tidak bergilir memantau anak-anak muda yang berpeleseran di kompleks membeli-belah.

Bukankah rokok dan merokok telah diharamkan dengan fatwa kebangsaan. Dimana memorandum-memorandum kepada Mufti-Mufti Negeri meminta negeri-negeri untuk menggazetkan fatwa melarang merokok. Tidak kedengaran, Dewan Pemuda PAS, mememohon kepada duli Sultan-Sultan untuk berkenan menggazet fatwa kebangsaan ini.

Sebaliknya dalam isu judi bolasepak, PAS berpendirian berbeza. Orang Islam dilarang agama berjudi. Dalam premises kedai judi ada papan maklum yang jelas memaklumkan orang Islam dilarang masuk ke premises ini. Jika orang Islam masih hendak masuk berjudi, pihak berkuasa patut tangkap mereka. Tetapi untuk orang bukan Islam dan bukan Melayu, tidak ada larangan berjudi selagi mereka berjudi ditempat yang mempunyai lesen. Walaupun dalam agama dan budaya orang-orang bukan Islam dan bukan Melayu juga nas-nas yang tidak menggalakkan perjudian, tetapi ia tidak sampai menetapkan hukuman jika seseorang berjudi. Jadi saya nak tanya apa PAS nak sibuk-sibuk ni ?

PAS perlu tahu bahawa lesen judi bolasepak yang diberikan kepada Ascot Sports mempunyai syarat-syarat yang ketat. Ascot Sports tidak mendapat apa-apa kelonggaran syarat sampai boleh membenarkan orang Islam dan Melayu untuk masuk premises Ascot Sports dan membuat petaruhan. Orang Islam dan orang Melayu tetap dilarang bukan sahaja berjudi tetapi dilarang masuk premises judi.

PAS perlu tahu bahawa judi bolasepak adalah industri yang bernilai berbilion-billion. Terdapat ribuan situs-situs dalam laman web yang membolehkan kaki bola untuk membuat wang pertaruhan judi bolasepak. Amatlah mudah untuk seorang yang samada tinggal di ceruk Pengkalan Chepa ataupun berlegar di tepi jalan Petaling Street untuk berjudi melalui internet. Selagi dia ada kemudahan internet ( sekarang sudahpun ada modem mudah-alih) dan mempunyai akaun bank, dia mudah membuat pertaruhan. Ini realiti. Berjudi melalui internet begitu mudah.

Di Malaysia, judi bolasepak melalui internet dan lain-lain cara yang tidak sah dianggarkan RM20 Billion setahun. RM20 Billion !. Ini satu jumlah yang besar. Kerajaan pula kehilangan cukai lebih kurang RM4 Billion setahun. Ini fakta.

Justru itu, suka atau tidak, samada judi bolasepak dibenarkan atau tidak, judi bolasepak tetap akan berterusan. Daripada kerajaan kehilangan cukai judi (perolehan cukai dari judi juga tidak digunakan untuk orang Islam ataupun Melayu) adalah lebih baik jika judi bolasepak dibenarkan tetapi judi bola dikawal dan dipantau oleh pihak berkuasa dan melalui undang-undang.

Tan Sri Vincent Tan, sudahpun mempunyai lesen judi untuk Sports Toto. Ascot Sports yang juga dimiliki Tan Sri Vincent Tan, juga boleh menjalankan operasi dari premises yang sama. Tiada perlu buka premises judi yang baru untuk Ascot Sports. Jika pun perlu ada, cukup sekiranya premises Ascot Sports dibuka ditempat-tempat yang sudahpun ada kedai-kedai judi nombor ramalan.

Daripada PAS menggempur premises judi lebih elok jika PAS mendidik orang Islam dan orang Melayu tentang larangan berjudi mengikut Islam. Orang bukan Islam dan orang bukan Melayu tidak memerlukan didikan tentang baik buruk judi dari PAS. Mungkin PAS bermula hari ini boleh mengarah ahli-ahli menggempur kedai-kedai yang menjual rokok dan berdiri diluar bergilir shif mengedar risalah kepada orang Islam dan orang Melayu yang merokok. Jika PAS tidak dapat membantu melaksanakan fatwa kebangsaan mengharamkan merokok, mengapa PAS begitu lantang membantah judi bola sepak?

Mungkin PAS boleh fikir bagaimana hendak menangani lain-lain isu seperti suami yang ghaib atau enggan membayar nafkah, kes-kes buang bayi ataupun gejala rogol anak kandung oleh ahli keluarga yang terdekat, gejala mat rempit dan bohsia dan sebagainya. Bila ada isu-isu seperti ini yang masih belum ditangani atau diselesaikan oleh PAS mengapa isu pemberian lesen judi bolasepak perlu di perdahulukan.

Ini adalah pendirian peribadi Norman Fernandez.
Norman Fernandez adalah kaki bola dan menggilai
pasukan Manchester United tetapi beliau BUKAN
kaki judi bolasepak dan untuk piala dunia
tahun ini akan menyokong Sepanyol.

Raja Petra can't be tried in Britain

(The Star) PETALING JAYA: The Government cannot bring fugitive blogger Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin to trial in Britain even if it wanted to.

Bar Council vice-president Lim Chee Wee said Malaysia would have to bring Raja Petra back to prosecute him.

“Essentially, it can’t be done,” he said when asked about Raja Petra’s challenge to the Malaysian Government to try him in Britain.

“You have to bring him back to prosecute him. To do that, you have to check if there is an extradition treaty with Britain.

“And if there is, it depends whether UK gives consent. One factor is whether he can get a fair trial in Malaysia,” said Lim.

It was reported on Monday that an online news portal had written that Raja Petra said he would seek a level playing field in his fight against charges of defamation and sedition as well as his appeal against his detention under the Internal Security Act.

Raja Petra refuted the notion that he should return home to defend himself at a Malaysian court, adding that it was the prosecution’s job to prove guilt.

He has two warrants of arrest issued against him for not attending up for his sedition trial in April and May last year.

Another lawyer, Norman Fernandez concurred with Lim that Raja Petra cannot be tried in Britain. “There is no provision to try him in UK. He is not a war criminal.

“And if he is tried there, and found guilty, can he serve his sentence in a UK prison?” he said.

Fernandez said Raja Petra was merely taunting the Malaysian authorities after he managed to slip out of the country.

“He’s thumbing his nose at the Malaysian authorities and saying ‘Catch me if you can’. He knows it is not easy to bring him back to Malaysia,” he said.

Fernandez said nobody knew Raja Petra’s residential status in Britain.

“If he is a visitor, then his term of stay in the country is limited. He could have entered Britain through special documents. Or as a refugee.

“We don’t know, and the British authorities have yet to shed light on this,” he said.

Former Selangor PKR Youth chief Hamidzun Khairuddin, who joined Umno in 2004, called Raja Petra a traitor to Malaysians.