Tweet
The Extradition Process: The Final Word
I was listening to an interview this morning on TVJ’s morning program. The guests were David Coore, who needs no introduction, and Arlene Harrison-Henry, Chairperson for the Independent Commission of Human Rights. This is what they said about extradition procedure in Jamaica.
The application to extradite an individual is made to the foreign ministry who then passes it on to the Ministry of Justice. The MOJ examines the application to ensure that the material satisfies the provisions of the extradition treaty. That is, the minister makes sure that the accused has been correctly identified, that the right documents have been filed, if the offence is one that is proper for trial, that the evidence justifies person being extradited. Basically, the minister ensures that the person is justifiably being extradited, that the treaty is satisfied.
It is not the responsibility of the minister to evaluate the quality or weight of the evidence. This ensures that role of the minister remains separate and distinct from that of the courts.
The wanted person is given an opportunity to go voluntarily or take the matter to the Supreme Court. The accused may appeal to the Court of Appeal if he is not satisfied with the ruling of the lower court. He does not, however, have the right of appeal to the Privy Council.
Also, in Jamaican courts, evidence illegally obtained is admissible in court. The judge will make the ruling if such evidence should be considered or not. For instance, if someone is beaten and admits to a crime, the judge may choose to disallow such evidence. It is the judge’s right to determine the admission of such illegally obtained evidence. It was stressed that the general rule in Jamaica is such evidence is admitted as long as it is relevant. If the probity of such evidence is great, and may assist in establishing the veracity of the case, then it can be allowed.
And finally, the Minister of Justice, after this entire process is exhausted, does retain residual power to squash the actual extradition of the individual for reasons of colour discrimination, political reasons, etc.
The two guests agreed that the Coke matter should have been placed in the hands of our courts, and not be killed at the steps of 20 Belmont Road. (The latter part of that sentence is my words.)
Of course, I do not expect this post to put an end to the debate of whether or not Bruce did the right thing last Tuesday in parliament when he flatly refused the extradition of Christopher Coke because he believes the evidence was illegally obtained. But it should make some of us, who are not so tribally connected, to re-examine our position on the matter, and to see if the USA indeed needs to come karrect.
I was listening to an interview this morning on TVJ’s morning program. The guests were David Coore, who needs no introduction, and Arlene Harrison-Henry, Chairperson for the Independent Commission of Human Rights. This is what they said about extradition procedure in Jamaica.
The application to extradite an individual is made to the foreign ministry who then passes it on to the Ministry of Justice. The MOJ examines the application to ensure that the material satisfies the provisions of the extradition treaty. That is, the minister makes sure that the accused has been correctly identified, that the right documents have been filed, if the offence is one that is proper for trial, that the evidence justifies person being extradited. Basically, the minister ensures that the person is justifiably being extradited, that the treaty is satisfied.
It is not the responsibility of the minister to evaluate the quality or weight of the evidence. This ensures that role of the minister remains separate and distinct from that of the courts.
The wanted person is given an opportunity to go voluntarily or take the matter to the Supreme Court. The accused may appeal to the Court of Appeal if he is not satisfied with the ruling of the lower court. He does not, however, have the right of appeal to the Privy Council.
Also, in Jamaican courts, evidence illegally obtained is admissible in court. The judge will make the ruling if such evidence should be considered or not. For instance, if someone is beaten and admits to a crime, the judge may choose to disallow such evidence. It is the judge’s right to determine the admission of such illegally obtained evidence. It was stressed that the general rule in Jamaica is such evidence is admitted as long as it is relevant. If the probity of such evidence is great, and may assist in establishing the veracity of the case, then it can be allowed.
And finally, the Minister of Justice, after this entire process is exhausted, does retain residual power to squash the actual extradition of the individual for reasons of colour discrimination, political reasons, etc.
The two guests agreed that the Coke matter should have been placed in the hands of our courts, and not be killed at the steps of 20 Belmont Road. (The latter part of that sentence is my words.)
Of course, I do not expect this post to put an end to the debate of whether or not Bruce did the right thing last Tuesday in parliament when he flatly refused the extradition of Christopher Coke because he believes the evidence was illegally obtained. But it should make some of us, who are not so tribally connected, to re-examine our position on the matter, and to see if the USA indeed needs to come karrect.
Comment