Fugitive Troy Thomas has lost yet another bid in a series of recent challenges mounted to fight his extradition to the United States (US), where he is wanted for a murder committed almost eight years ago.
Throwing out his challenge yesterday morning, Justice Navindra Singh found that there was sufficient evidence to have warranted Thomas’ committal for extradition. In the circumstances, the judge imposed court costs against Thomas in the sum of $450,000, which he has to pay to respondents, who are the Commissioner of Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General.
During the hearing yesterday dismissing Thomas’ challenge, however, Justice Singh ruled that Principal Magistrate Sherdel Isaacs-Marcus was within her jurisdiction to conduct committal proceedings and to have issued a warrant of committal for extradition against Thomas.
Thomas’ primary challenge to his committal for extradition had been that Minister of Public Security Khemraj Ramjattan had no legal authority to authorise the magistrate to proceed with the committal and, further, that the magistrate had no legal authority to continue on with those proceedings since they purported to act in accordance with sections of the Fugitive Offenders Act that are unconstitutional and in furtherance of the 1931 treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States, which is not incorporated into Guyana’s laws.
Following the conclusion of extradition proceedings against him on November 30th last, Magistrate Isaacs-Marcus, who presided over the case, overruled a no-case submission which attorney Nigel Hughes had made on behalf of Thomas, thereby ordering that he be extradited.
Counsel’s argument had been that a magistrate, being a creature of statute, was not empowered to interpret and or apply the provisions of a treaty which had not been incorporated into the provisions of the domestic laws of Guyana.
He contended that in the absence of any provision in the treaty preventing the extradition of the applicant to a third state by the requesting state, the Minister of Public Security is not empowered to consider and or grant an authority to proceed to the Chief Magistrate for the extradition of the applicant from Guyana to the US.
In June of last year, Thomas had approached the High Court to challenge the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court proceeding to hear his extradition challenge.
Justice Jo-Ann Barlow would, however, later dismiss the challenge to the jurisdiction of the magistracy to hear the proceedings, ruling that the hearings were neither illegal nor a breach of Thomas’ constitutional rights as he had been contending.
In his ruling yesterday, Justice Singh said he fully agreed with and wholly adopted Justice Barlow’s ruling and thereafter also denied Thomas’ jurisdictional challenge.
Noting that Thomas has since appealed that judge’s ruling, which is still pending before the Court of Appeal, Justice Singh said that it was improper, and an abuse of the process of the court for Thomas to have raised that particular issue before him (Justice Singh) also.
Justice Barlow had declared that Section 8(3) of the Fugitive Offenders Amendment Act of 2009 authorised the extradition of a person to a Common-wealth country or treaty territory regardless of what is stated in any other law or treaty, once the minister considered that it was in the interest of justice.
Furthermore, Justice Barlow contended that the minister would have taken all things into consideration when arriving at his decision, and that he would be at liberty to exercise his discretion once all things were taken into account.
She called “untenable” Thomas’ claim that amendments to the local legislation (the Fugitive Offenders Act) were an attempt to amend the treaty, while stating that it instead amended part of domestic legislation.
As had also been raised before and determined by both Justice Barlow and Magistrate Isaacs-Marcus, Justice Singh found that both the judge and magistrate had properly satisfied themselves as to the identity of the applicant before them (Thomas).
Thomas had sought to dispute that his name was Troy Thomas and instead claimed to be Marvin Williams. The former he described in his application as being the name he was referred to “by the Guyana Police Force.”
Magistrate Isaacs-Marcus had noted that when referred to as Troy Thomas, the defendant never objected to the name. Additionally, during a voir dire held to determine his identity, a number of witnesses were called and the defendant gave unsworn evidence. At the conclusion of the voir dire, it was determined that the person before the court was indeed Troy Thomas.
She noted, too, that the signature of the defendant found in the Criminal Investigation Department record books and the court documents confirmed him to be Troy Thomas.
Addressing this very issue contested before her also by Thomas’ attorney, who argued that his name was Marvin Williams, Justice Barlow also concluded that based on court documentation, the man had answered to the name “Troy Thomas” on several occasions when called before the court and at no time complained that that was not his name.
Further, he was admitted to prison under that same name. The judge, therefore, found that since he answered to that name, it was reasonable to assume that he is or was sometime known as Troy Thomas.
While noting that it was not a ground specifically raised before him, Justice Singh said it was the duty of his court to ensure that the magistrate had sufficient evidence before her to commit Thomas for extradition.
Against this background, the judge referenced the account of Kirt Kyte—an eye witness to Thomas shooting Keith Frank to the torso, inflicting an injury which Dr. Katherine Maloney opined was the cause of death.
Justice Singh said he found that based on the affidavits of both Kyte and Maloney there was more than sufficient evidence before the magistrate to commit Thomas for the offence of murder in the second degree, an extraditable offence under Section 5 of the Fugitive Offenders Act.
In the circumstances, the judge refused Thomas’ application and imposed the $450,000 court costs against him.
Thomas, formerly of South Ozone Park, Queens, New York, is accused of shooting Frank on December 11th, 2011.
