CHIEF JUSTICE’S DECISION
Chief Justice Menon dismissed Tannos’ application and upheld the district judge’s finding based on what he said was the only viable interpretation of the “sick or infirm” exception.
A broader interpretation based on the ordinary meanings of the words would allow bail to be sought on the slightest illness or infirmity, like a cough or cold, he said.
However, in proposing a “middle ground” interpretation, Justice Menon observed that Tannos’ lawyers had difficulty identifying what criteria should be applied.
In contrast, SPS’ ability to reasonably and safely manage a fugitive’s medical condition was a clear and objective standard for what meets the threshold of “sick or infirm”.
Chief Justice Menon noted that while in remand, Tannos was receiving medication and a low-sugar diet. SPS had said it can manage his medical conditions, was prepared to handle any medical emergencies, and was ready to arrange specialist care if needed.
He also accepted the state’s arguments that Tannos’ pre-existing medical conditions were stable, with no new or important developments.
“This leads me to the conclusion that the applicant does not suffer from any sickness or infirmity that cannot be managed by the SPS safely,” he said.
Chief Justice Menon added that there is public interest in ensuring Singapore can meet its obligations under its extradition treaties, and that this appears to be a key consideration in the way the exceptions for bail have been crafted.
He further affirmed the district judge’s decision to deny bail as Tannos was at risk of absconding, pointing to the fugitive’s various passports and inconsistent accounts of how he obtained them.
The state counsels earlier flashed an image of Tannos’ diplomatic passport from Guinea-Bisseau, held under the name “Joao Paolo Gomes”, and his differing explanations of how he obtained that passport.
Describing this as “troubling”, Mr Leow argued that while Tannos has been in Singapore for about a decade, he has family overseas and presents a high flight risk.
