Back
Next 
2013 MarsdenLR 2307
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
SAID MIR BAHRAMI – Appellant
Versus
PENGARAH PENJARA SUNGAI BULOH SELANGOR – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 05-68-05-2012(W)]
Extradition proceedings are not trials but commitment determinations; statutory frameworks allowing prima facie evidence dispensation do not violate fundamental rights.
Headnote:(A) Extradition Act 1992 - Sections 4, 20 - Appeal against High Court decision on habeas corpus application - Appellant, a citizen of Afghanistan, detained pending extradition to Australia for serious offences under Australian law - Court considered procedures prescribed by Act and Treaty's provisions on prima facie requirement - Appellant's complaint that these provisions are draconian and infringe fundamental rights was rejected - Court clarified that extradition proceedings are not trials but determinations for commitment - Identity evidence through photo board deemed sufficient - Appeal dismissed, High Court's order upheld. (Paras 1-25)
(B) Extradition Provisions - The courts must respect the statutory framework enabling extradition and will not question the policy decisions of Parliament regarding such frameworks. (Paras 11-20)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. extradition process requires sufficient legal grounds. (Para 1) |
[1] This is an appeal by the appellant, a citizen of Afghanistan, against the decision of the High Court Kuala Lumpur dated 24 April 2012. The High Court had dismissed the appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus and thus affirming the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in detaining the appellant at the Sungai Buloh Prison pending the issuance of an order by the Minister of Home Affairs ("Minister") for extradition to Australia under s 20 of the Extradition Act 1992 (Act 479) ("the Extradition Act").
