Indonesian student Reynhard Sinaga was branded “Britain’s most prolific rapist” when he was sentenced to a minimum term of 40 years in prison back in 2020, with the presiding judge saying that he would “never be safe to be released.”
Sinaga, originally from Indonesia’s Jambi Province, was found guilty of raping and sexually assaulting 48 men in Manchester from 2015 to 2017, and described by the presiding judge at his sentencing as “an evil serial sexual predator who has preyed upon young men.”
Now however, he presents an interesting test case for U.K.-Indonesia relations following comments in February by Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration and Correctional Institutions Yusril Ihza Mahendra that Indonesia is seeking his return to his home country.
Sinaga’s case is part of a broader initiative by the Indonesian government in recent months to bring home Indonesians imprisoned abroad, including Encep Nurjaman, alias Hambali, who is currently incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp in Cuba where he is facing terrorism related charges for allegedly orchestrating the deadly 2002 Bali bombing.
This policy is reciprocal, and Indonesia returned the five remaining members of the so-called “Bali Nine” drug smuggling syndicate to their native Australia in December last year. Also in December, convicted drug smuggler Mary Jane Veloso was repatriated to the Philippines.
A mugshot of the serial rapist Reynhard Sinaga, released by the U.K. authorities in January 2020. (Crown Prosecution Service)
Yet, while the two aforementioned cases demonstrated tact and diplomacy on behalf of the Indonesian authorities, the legal mechanism by which Sinaga might be returned to Indonesia is unlikely to be as straightforward.
Unlike other countries, Indonesia and the U.K. do not have a formal prisoner transfer agreement.
The Indonesian authorities have mooted the idea that they could pursue a prisoner “swap,” where a British national serving their sentence in Indonesia is exchanged for Sinaga, although there is also no current legislation for this. There has also been no suggestion from the British side that this would be of any interest or that they consider U.K. prisoner repatriation from Indonesia to be a priority.
Even if there were an agreement in place, or if Indonesia and the U.K. now decide to draft one, there are other issues to consider.
It is always sensitive when a criminal is “returned” (which is different legally to being “released”) back to their home country: once they have left the legal jurisdiction where they were originally convicted, their fate is in the hands of the country to which they have been repatriated.
While many prisoner transfer “deals” involve statements from the sentencing country that they “hope” the offenders will continue to serve the remainder of their sentences in jails back home, this is impossible to enforce, and countries often decide to quietly release their citizens or pardon them once they are back on home soil.
This was the case with the recent “Bali Five,” who had their life sentences commuted when they arrived back in Australia, having served some 20 years in Indonesian prisons, which the Australian authorities appeared to consider was ample punishment.
It was also the case with two Malaysians who were returned from Guantanamo Bay to Malaysia in December of last year, who were similarly released upon their arrival home.
They had been tried at Guantanamo’s military court for helping plan and execute the 2002 Bali bombing alongside Hambali, and had served 18 years in custody before they were sentenced as part of a plea deal.
As with the “Bali Five,” the Malaysian authorities deemed this sufficient punishment and said that “everyone deserves a second chance.”
Back to Sinaga’s case, there is the added issue that his original U.K. sentence has no legal equivalent in Indonesia.
He was sentenced to a life sentence with a minimum 40-year term (raised from 30 years on appeal), although in Indonesia 40-year prison terms do not exist and the only options available are either life imprisonment or a maximum of 20 years in prison.
As such, the Indonesian authorities would likely have to maintain his life term with no chance of parole, or commute it to a lesser custodial sentence of 20 years or below, perhaps taking into account time already served in the U.K.
An added conundrum is that all of Sinaga’s victims were British, and the U.K. authorities may be unwilling to return him to Indonesia if there is any suggestion that his sentence could be commuted or he could be released – as public sentiment around the case in the U.K. remains high. So far, the Indonesian side has made no suggestion that Sinaga would be granted any leniency were he to return home, although this may not be a sufficient guarantee for the U.K.
If Sinaga is ever to be returned, the U.K. and Indonesia will need to draft a transfer agreement similar to those that already exist between countries like the U.K. and Thailand. But Sinaga is a wholly unsympathetic test case and an undesirable candidate for such a legal step.
Sinaga was convicted of 158 sex offenses, including 136 rapes, after it was found that he lured young men back to his Manchester flat and drugged them with spiked drinks before assaulting them when they were incapacitated.
He also filmed the attacks and kept trophies of his victims, including mobile phones, bank cards, and passports – all of which contributed to his conviction and led police to believe that he may have attacked as many as 190 victims, leading to his now infamous title as the most prolific rapist in British legal history.
While it is understandable and commendable that Indonesia wants to repatriate and support its citizens incarcerated abroad, Sinaga’s case may be a stretch too far due to the abhorrent nature of his crimes and the U.K.’s ongoing desire to provide justice to his victims, many of whom have yet to be identified.
