Case 3/2008 in Macau

Case 3/2008 in Macau was a habeas corpus case heard before the Macau Tribunal of Ultimate Instance. The applicant A filed a request of habeas corpus to the court, as he believed his elder sister B was in unlawful detention by the Judiciary Police in Macau, when in fact B had been transferred to the Public Security Bureau of Zhuhai, China, one day before the request. The court has no jurisdiction outside Macau, so it ruled that there was no further need to adjudicate, on grounds of supervening impossibility of the remedy sought. The judgment, however, went on to cite a previous decision by the same court in 2007, which allowed a similar application. The court this time reiterated that before specific legislation is introduced, it is illegal to transfer fugitives to mainland China, and the acts by the authority in the present case "discredit justice, undermine the Rechtsstaat and do not bring prestige to the Macau Special Administrative Region.":7 The case has since been cited by jurists in academic papers concerning the lack of extradition legislation between Macau and mainland China.

Case 3/2008 in Macau
CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Macau)
DecidedFebruary 12, 2008 (2008-02-12)
Citation(s)Processo n.º 3/2008
Transcript(s)Judgment in Portuguese Chinese translation
Case history
Related action(s)Case 12/2007 in Macau
Court membership
Judges sittingViriato Manuel Pinheiro de Lima, João Augusto Gonçalves Gil de Oliveira, Jorge Miguel Pinto de Seabra
Case opinions
Extraditing fugitives is subject to the provision of special law, but there was no such law for extradition to Mainland China.
Decision byViriato Manuel Pinheiro de Lima
ConcurrenceJoão Augusto Gonçalves Gil de Oliveira, Jorge Miguel Pinto de Seabra
Keywords

After the Hong Kong Causeway Bay Books disappearances in 2015, a report in February 2016 by South China Morning Post recalled this case. The day after, Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak, who was the head of Judiciary Police in 2008, emphasised that the extradition had followed the law, and the criticism by the court was due to different interpretation of the law.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.