The extradition hearing of Barry Dataram commenced yesterday in the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court after permission was granted for this, by Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee.
Elisabeth Harper, Director General in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was the first witness to take the stand in Magistrate Hazel Octive-Hamilton’s courtroom. The hearing has been adjourned to next Monday.
Prior to this, Dataram’s attorney, Vic Puran, made several submissions to the court. He began by informing the court that a fresh application was made after an earlier one, which sought certain remedies in relation to a provisional warrant, was refused by Justice Roxanne George.
The new application, for an order nisi, Puran said, was made to Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang and Justice William Ramlal in Full Court. Puran further submitted that the order nisi was granted but he was not sure when that was done.
According to Puran, the matter concerning that application will continue tomorrow before Justice Chang and Justice Ramlal.
Puran went on to inform the court that Magistrate Octive-Hamilton, against whom the orders were made, had been represented by Attorney General Doodnauth Singh.
“I am of the humble view that we should await the discharge of that order nisi which I have no doubt will be discharged,” Puran stated. “I expect that the Full Court [hearing] will come to an end on Wednesday because if my client takes my advice then the matter will be withdrawn.”
Puran informed the court that an application made in the High Court yesterday before Justice Rishi Persaud was refused. According to the lawyer, Dataram is now in the process of “exercising his right”. Puran urged that the magistrate court’s proceedings await the outcome of the new Full Court proceedings.
The defence attorney also submitted that the magistrate has a “pecuniary interest against the applicant [Dataram]”. This interest, he argued, surfaced from the matter filed against the magistrate for false imprisonment.
The High Court proceedings against the magistrate, Puran said, had been pronounced on.
“So the only issue that is left now,” Puran contended, “is the quantum of damages, hence, the pecuniary interest of the magistrate in this matter. It would be in the interest of this magistrate to pause the extradition [hearing] of Mr Dataram.”
Director of Public Prose-cutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, in response stated that the application which Puran alleged had been granted was never granted.
The order 46 rule 16 application numbers 58 of 2008, to which Puran referred in the first section of his submissions to the court, was adjourned last Thursday morning to tomorrow, Ali-Hack said.
“I was present in Full Court when Puran made an application to the said Full Court before the Chief Justice and Justice Ramlal that an order be made against us proceeding with this matter,” Ali-Hack stated.
According to her, Justice Chang pointed out and she quoted; “How can I make that order?” and he further stated that the court could not proceed with the minister issuing the authority to proceed without receiving the documentation for the extradition request.
With regard to Puran’s point on Magistrate Octive-Hamilton’s reason for having pecuniary interest in the case, the DPP stated that such a case was not covered by the law as it related to pecuniary interest.
“The circumstances of the proceeding instituted by Puran on behalf of Dataram for damages for false imprisonment does not fall within the ambit of cases of cause of action for pecuniary interest,” the DPP stated. “A court has to first decide whether there was false imprisonment and thereafter damages.”
According to Ali-Hack, the magistrate has no jurisdiction to order the extradition of any fugitive including Dataram. The magistrate, she said, having satisfied with what was canvassed before the court could only commit the defendant to imprisonment.
“None of the grounds submitted by Puran has any legal merit and I urge the court to proceed with extradition hearing it has received permission from the Minister of Home Affairs to do so,” Ali-Hack said.
Magistrate Octive-Hamilton, after considering the DPP’s submission, overruled Puran’s submissions and promptly commenced the extradition hearing.
Prior to this last instance, provisional arrest warrants were issued twice before in the Magistrate’s Court for Dataram and both time Puran had moved to the High Court to secure his release.
The latest of three Habeas Corpus applications filed by Puran culminated in Dataram’s release last December when Justice Jainarayan Singh Jr ruled in the High Court that Dataram’s detention was not lawful.
Police started showing interest in Dataram after the drug-linked kidnapping of his wife, Sheleza Dataram and their three-year-old daughter last December by two Venezuelans, one of whom was shot dead by the police.
He was arrested and had been detained by police beyond the 72 hours that the law allows a person to be held in custody before being charged. His lawyers had approached the court with a Habeas Corpus writ but the police had asked for an extension to conclude their investigation into the kidnapping, which they said was drug related.
Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards had ruled in favour of the extension and Dataram’s lawyer subsequently appealed her ruling before Justice Singh who released Dataram on $100,000 bail. However, soon after bail was granted, the police had received the warrant from the US and Dataram was rearrested, even before he left the precinct of the Brickdam Police Station.
He was taken back to the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court where the second provisional warrant was issued. His lawyers moved to the High Court once more in front of Justice Singh where Dataram was freed.
Upon his release, he was ordered to report to the Commissioner of Police every Monday and Friday but had failed to do so. He was rearrested on October 4 for breach of a court order and has remained in custody since. Puran has since contended that the police could not have arrested his client for a breach of a court order. In the meantime, the US has issued another warrant for Dataram.