Persaud’s attorney Anil Nandlall will be applying to for a Rule Nisi of Certiorari to be directed to the acting chief magistrate for her to quash her decision. The arrest warrant, Nandlall said in his Notice of Motion to the court, is “pursuant to section 13, of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1988 as amended by the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009 for the arrest of Barry Dataram for the purposes of committal and extradition to the United States of America for trial in relation to certain drug related offences.”
The decision, Nandlall contended, is unlawful, based on irrelevant considerations, unreasonable, contrary to and in breach of the Fugitive Offenders Act, null, void and of no legal effect. If the order is granted, Robertson will have to show cause why the Rule Nisi of Certiorari should not be made absolute.
Further, with regard to the same decision, Nandlall is applying to the court for a Writ of Certiorari to be directed to Robertson quashing it. He also seeks to have a Rule Nisi of Mandamus directed to the acting chief magistrate compelling her to issue the arrest warrant and for her to show why it must not be made absolute. A Writ of Mandamus is also being sought for the same purpose.
In her ruling, Robertson had stated that after reviewing the arguments put forward by both parties, she would only deal with whether a person had the right to be heard at the stage of a petition for an arrest warrant, whether the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009 and the Fugitive Offenders Act could be read together and applied and whether the process that the Crime Chief used in making the request for the arrest warrant was properly initiated. She said that other matters raised by the defence and Nandlall, who represented Persaud, in her opinion were not pertinent at the time.
As it related to whether or not the request for the arrest warrant was properly initiated by Persaud, she again cited precedent that states that an extradition proceeding should commence when a request is received by the magistrate from the country to which the individual is to be extradited. She said that at no point in time did she receive the request and therefore she would not be able to properly proceed with the matter and consequently the Authority to Proceed issued by the Minister of Home Affairs was void and of no legal effect from the beginning of this matter. Therefore, she ruled that permission was not given to Persaud on the swearing of information upon oath for the arrest of Dataram for the purpose of committal and she urged that “the Minister of Home Affairs should be respectfully advised as such.” The oath, which was signed by Persaud and was to be sworn to on February 18 was objected to by attorney Vic Puran.
Police have arrested Dataram on several occasions and this is not their first attempt to have him extradited to the US.
