HUANG YUAN YUAN IAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION CENTRE AND ANOTHER

FAMC No. 53 of 2006

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 53 OF 2006 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 74 OF 2006)

_____________________

_____________________

______________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

______________________

Chief Justice Li:

1.  The Government of Singapore seeks the extradition of the applicant to face 16 criminal charges involving the use of forged documents and theft.  On 26 July 2005 after a contested hearing, the Magistrate (Mr Eddie Yip) committed him into custody to await the Chief Executive’s decision whether or not to surrender him to Singapore.

2.  The applicant applied for a writ of habeas corpus.  On 11 January 2006, that application was dismissed by the Court of First Instance (Hartmann J).  On 5 October 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and subsequently, dismissed his application for a certificate that points of law of great and general importance are involved.

3.  Any supporting document which is duly authenticated is admissible in evidence in extradition proceedings without any further proof.  Section 23(1) of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, Cap. 503 (“the Ordinance).  In so far as relevant to the present case, the requirements for authentication are: (1) The document must purport to be signed or certified by a judge of Singapore and (2) The document must be sealed with the official or public seal of a competent authority of Singapore.  See s. 23(2) of the Ordinance and Article 9 of the Agreement between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Singapore for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders contained in the Fugitive Offenders (Singapore) Order, Cap. 503 Q.

4.  The supporting documents in the present case included an affidavit of Mr Mohd Shahri bin Kamsin, an Assistant Superintendent of the Singapore Police (“the Assistant Superintendent”).  The exhibits to that affidavit included two affidavits from officers of Rothschild Bank AG, Zurich, Switzerland (“the Swiss affidavits”).

5.  There is no dispute that the Assistant Superintendent’s affidavit was duly authenticated.   It was certified by District Judge Wong Choon Ning of Singapore (“District Judge Wong”) as being an original document recording the Assistant Superintendent’s evidence.  District Judge Wong also signed on each exhibit page including the exhibit containing the Swiss affidavits.  And a Certificate of Authentication was issued by the Minister of Law in Singapore stating among other matters that the signature of District Judge Wong appearing in the Assistant Superintendent’s affidavit was District Judge Wong’s signature and that the affidavit was an original.  The Certificate of Authentication was sealed with an official seal.

6.  The applicant had relied on a number of grounds before the Judge.  Before the Court of Appeal, the only issue was whether the Swiss affidavits were duly authenticated.  The Court of Appeal held that they were.  The Judge had reached the same conclusion.

7.  It is submitted that two points of law of great and general importance should be certified and that leave should be granted.  The first point relates to whether an affidavit such as the Swiss affidavits complies with the requirements of due authentication.  The second relates to whether if such an affidavit is duly authenticated, whether the same is admissible notwithstanding the hearsay nature of the matters contained therein.

8.  In considering whether the requirements of due authentication were met, the Court of Appeal on the basis of various authorities eschewed a narrow approach and held that the Swiss affidavits were in the circumstances duly authenticated.

9.  The Court of Appeal was plainly right in holding that the Swiss affidavits were duly authenticated.  No reasonably arguable case to the contrary has been made out.  Being duly authenticated, the Swiss affidavits are admissible in evidence in extradition proceedings without any further proof.  It is not suggested that their deponents lacked direct knowledge so as to make the affidavit evidence hearsay evidence.

10.  Accordingly, the application for a certificate and for leave is dismissed with costs.  An order is made for the taxation of the applicant’s costs in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.