(Barbados Nation) The Barbados Chief Magistrate has been ordered by the island’s top judge to carry on with the extradition proceedings against three men wanted in the United States on drug trafficking and conspiracy charges.
But lawyers for the men say before that happens, they will be taking their cases to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
John Scantlebury, Sean Gaskin and Frederick Christopher Hawkesworth were in the Court of Appeal on Monday for a ruling in the matter arising from a civil decision, given by Justice Margaret Reifer, in their case against the Attorney General and Chief Magistrate Clyde Nicholls.
The three, through attorneys Ralph Thorne, QC, Hal Gollop and Steve Gollop, had sought judicial review of Chief Magistrate Nicholls’ decision to throw out their no-case submissions.
Justice Reifer dismissed the applications for judicial review and the attorneys lodged nine grounds of appeal.
They argued that not only was Justice Reifer wrong to hold that the application for judicial review was premature, but that extradition was inconsistent with the Constitution; that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should not have appeared on behalf of the United States Government and that the Attorney General was not a proper party to the proceedings.
Monday, reading extracts from the 84-page decision, President of the Court and Chief Justice Sir David Simmons, who presided with Justice of Appeal Peter Williams and Acting Justice of Appeal Elneth Kentish, said the appellants had not succeeded on any of the grounds of appeal.
“It is hereby ordered and directed that the Chief Magistrate complete the committal proceedings in accordance with the [Extradition] Act and as expeditiously as possible,” Sir David said.
Sir David said the court had agreed with Justice Reifer’s dismissal of the applications and said the three men should have waited until the committal proceedings were completed before challenging them.
The court also held that the Extradition Act was not inconsistent with Sections 12 and 13 of the Constitution; that the DPP was entitled to appear on behalf of the United States Government, and that the proceedings should have been in the name of the “Government of the United States of America”.
Speaking after the decision, Thorne, who represented Gaskin and Hawkesworth, said he was “fortified” that the Court of Appeal had agreed with him that the Attorney General was not a proper party to the proceedings.
“It is a matter of regret,” Thorne said, “that the Court of Appeal felt the appellants should not succeed on the other grounds. They are left with no choice other than to pursue this matter further before the Caribbean Court of Justice.”
Hal Gollop, who represented Scantlebury, said he, too, would be taking his case to the CCJ, especially on the issue of his right to cross-examine a witness. The court had found no merit in that ground.
“I am concerned that the right to cross-examine a witness to test his veracity could be denied,” he said, adding his client had sworn affidavits to show that while the offences were allegedly taking place, he was incarcerated in a United States jail.
The United States had claimed that Gaskin, Scantlebury, and Hawkesworth were part of a five-man ring that attempted to import and distribute five kilos of cocaine into that country in July 2000.
It also claimed the three were members of a Guyana-Barbados crime ring which an American drug agent penetrated between July and September 2000.
Guyana link
On June 11, 2008, convicted drug trafficker, Raffel Christopher Douglas returned here after serving time in a US jail for distribution of cocaine in that country related to the present Barbados proceedings.
Douglas, a former basketball coach here before being arrested in Trinidad had entered into a plea deal with the US government after pleading guilty to the charge. As a result the US dropped four other drug-related charges against the Guyanese and taking into consideration a previous imprisonment in Canada and the time he spent behind bars since his apprehension in 2005, he was released without any sentence.
The four charges that were withdrawn were distribution of narcotics from illegal importation and three counts of conspiracy to distribute narcotics. Douglas had been indicted in connection with the shipment of 184 kilogrammes of cocaine, seized at JFK Airport on September 21, 2003.
Attorney-at-law Paul Laymon, who represented the US in the case, had told the court in his response to Douglas’ plea deal that the US believed that offer was fair. He noted that the case boiled down to the testimony of an informant, who could have been skilfully impeached by the defence.
Further, Laymon said, the case involved only two kilogrammes of cocaine, though there were some hazy conversations between the confidential informant (CI) and Hawkesworth (a co-defendant in Douglas’s case) about other deals. “Douglas served seven years in Canada on a case which was eventually overturned and will have served almost three years in this case, meaning he will have been confined for about ten of the past 13 years. His apparent guideline range is not much different from the recommended sentence. Accord-ingly, the government would urge the court to accept the plea and sentence the defendant in accordance with the plea agreement,” Laymon asserted.
The US said its case against Douglas was based almost solely on the informant’s testimony, as corroborated by several recorded telephone calls with Douglas and the codefendant Hawkesworth, along with several recorded face-to-face meetings with Hawkesworth in which Douglas was discussed.
