Roach v Republic Of Singapore

Extradition proceedings are not an abuse of process merely because the requested conduct is connected with conduct for which the person was prosecuted abroad. The court must examine the offences by reference to their legal elements and the time and circumstances in which they were completed.

Where the requested offence was completed before the foreign offences arose, and the foreign offences would have been committed even if the property had been obtained lawfully, the offences are separate and discrete. A general or holistic similarity between the conduct and the underlying criminal property does not establish double jeopardy or abuse of process.

The appellant was wanted for trial in Singapore for robbery and for removing the proceeds of that robbery from Singapore. After leaving Singapore, he was prosecuted and convicted in Thailand for currency-control, customs and anti-money-laundering offences, arising from his failure to declare the Singapore currency and his subsequent conversion and expenditure of it.

The District Judge rejected arguments based on double jeopardy and abuse of process and sent the case to the Secretary of State. Permission to appeal was refused on the Article 3 and Article 8 grounds but granted on the double-jeopardy and abuse-of-process ground. The central issue was whether the Thai convictions made extradition for the Singapore offence of removing the money from Singapore abusive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court agreed with the District Judge’s reasoning on both double jeopardy and abuse of process.
2. Double jeopardy was not strictly engaged. The alleged Singapore offence was completed when the aircraft left Singapore, or at the latest when it left Singapore airspace. At that time the appellant had committed no offence under Thai law.
3. The Thai offences were separate and discrete in time and substance. The currency-control and customs offences arose only when the appellant passed through customs or a relevant exit without declaring the money. The anti-money-laundering offence arose later, when he converted and spent the Singapore currency.
4. The Thai anti-money-laundering conviction was predicated on the Thai currency and customs offences. It was not, of itself, predicated on the earlier Singapore offence.
5. The fact that the money had allegedly been obtained by robbery did not define the Thai offences. The appellant would have committed the Thai offences even if he had obtained the money lawfully, including by selling property or receiving it as a gift.
6. References in the Thai judgment to the money having been obtained by theft were background context relevant to the narrative and sentence. They did not convert the Thai offences into the Singapore offence or make extradition abusive.

The extradition proceedings were therefore not stayed, and the appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s decision was dismissed. Permission was limited to the double-jeopardy and abuse-of-process ground.
• District Judge: On 29 August 2018, District Judge Nina Tempia concluded that there were no bars to extradition and sent the case to the Secretary of State.