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 a
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - Case 3/2008 in Macau (en)
- 2008年澳門人身保護令案 (zh)
|
| rdfs:comment
| - 2008年澳門人身保護令案（案件編號：第3/2008號），申請人甲，姓名並未公開（沿用判詞中的代稱，下同），答辯人為澳門檢察院。2008年2月8日，甲為被澳門司法警察局扣留的胞姊乙入禀澳門終審法院，申請人身保護令，稱該拘留為非法。但因警方已於2月7日將乙移交予珠海市公安局，法院以嗣後無用為由，宣告訴訟程序消滅。判詞引用同一法院，認定未有為此訂立特別法之先，將逃犯移交內地的行為不合法，「這些行為違背公正，動搖法治，影響澳門特別行政區的威望。」事件成為法學者關注澳門與內地未訂立刑事司法互助制度時引用的案例。 2015年香港銅鑼灣書店股東及員工失蹤事件後，《南華早報》一篇報導令本案再次為人所知。澳门保安司司長則強調，移交有依法律，法院的批評源於對法律的理解不同。 (zh)
- 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 a (en)
|
| foaf:depiction
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Wikipage page ID
| |
| Wikipage revision ID
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
| sameAs
| |
| transcripts
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| thumbnail
| |
| citations
| |
| court
| |
| judges
| |
| keywords
| - Habeas corpus
- Extradition
- (en)
- Judicial cooperation in criminal matters with Mainland China (en)
- Supervening impossibility (en)
|
| has abstract
| - 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." The case has since been cited by jurists in academic papers concerning the lack of extradition legislation between Macau and mainland China. 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. (en)
- 2008年澳門人身保護令案（案件編號：第3/2008號），申請人甲，姓名並未公開（沿用判詞中的代稱，下同），答辯人為澳門檢察院。2008年2月8日，甲為被澳門司法警察局扣留的胞姊乙入禀澳門終審法院，申請人身保護令，稱該拘留為非法。但因警方已於2月7日將乙移交予珠海市公安局，法院以嗣後無用為由，宣告訴訟程序消滅。判詞引用同一法院，認定未有為此訂立特別法之先，將逃犯移交內地的行為不合法，「這些行為違背公正，動搖法治，影響澳門特別行政區的威望。」事件成為法學者關注澳門與內地未訂立刑事司法互助制度時引用的案例。 2015年香港銅鑼灣書店股東及員工失蹤事件後，《南華早報》一篇報導令本案再次為人所知。澳门保安司司長則強調，移交有依法律，法院的批評源於對法律的理解不同。 (zh)
|
| concurring
| |
| date decided
| |
| decision by
| |
| number of judges
| |
| opinions
| - Extraditing fugitives is subject to the provision of special law, but there was no such law for extradition to Mainland China. (en)
|
| related actions
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)
