The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A MAN fighting an approved extradition request had an uphill task convincing Court of Appeal judges yesterday to further delay the hearing to facilitate the recovery of transcripts from the committal proceedings to assist his appeal.

Melvin Maycock Sr and his lawyer, Jerone Roberts, appeared before Justices Anita Allen, Abdulai Conteh and Neville Adderley when Mr Roberts emphasised the need for the record from the Magistrate’s Court for the appeal.

Anticipating what Mr Roberts would say next, Court of Appeal President Anita Allen immediately took exception to the thought of another adjournment in the matter.

“I do not want this matter to be delayed any further,” Justice Allen said, appearing displeased. “It’s making our (judicial) system look like it’s not functioning.”

“Why do you need them?” Justice Conteh asked.

He added: “This present appeal is taken against the refusal of a habeas corpus application.”

Mr Roberts said that one of the grounds in his client’s appeal relates to an order of the London-based Privy Council.

“We don’t need the transcripts for that,” Justice Allen replied.

Mr Roberts said his difficulty as counsel is that he did not represent Maycock at proceedings, either in the Magistrate’s Court or Supreme Court.

In May 2013, then Deputy Chief Magistrate Carolita Bethell ruled that there was sufficient evidence for the men to answer allegations of their involvement in a multi-national drug smuggling organisation, as alleged by the US government in 2004 when the request was made.

However, Maycock Sr, his son, Melvin Maycock Jr, Trevor Roberts, Gordon Newbold, Sheldon Moore, Devroy Moss, Shanto Curry, Lynden and Brenden Deal, Torry and Larran Lockhart, Wilfred Ferguson, Derek Rigby and Carl Culmer had since appealed the magistrate’s ruling with a habeas corpus application to the Supreme Court.

An appeal to the Privy Council on the legality of the Listening Devices Act was lodged by Newbold, Curry, Moore, Roberts, Moss and Maycock Sr and was heard on February 12 and 13 last year.

Two months later, the Privy Council ruled that the Listening Devices Act, the governing legislation for wire taps, was constitutional.

Last September, then-Senior Justice Jon Isaacs approved the extradition request for Maycock Sr, Roberts, Moss, Curry, the Deal brothers, Torry Lockhart, Ferguson, Rigby, Culmer, Moore and Newbold. He quashed an extradition order for Maycock’s son and Larran Lockhart.

Maycock Sr and others have since launched their appeal of that ruling.

“I’m not minded to adjourn this,” Justice Allen said yesterday.

“This matter, it is my submission, requires the record of the committal proceedings,” Mr Roberts argued.

“It’s just going to be another delay,” Justice Allen replied.

“The habeas corpus is predicated on the evidence from the committal proceedings and that evidence was not before the (Supreme) Court,” Mr Roberts said.

“These matters have been dragging on for too long. And you know who gets the black eye? The judiciary. I am adamant that these matters are going to be heard in July,” Justice Allen stressed.

“M’lords, I cannot argue anything in this without knowing what transpired below,” the lawyer submitted.

“Have you had the opportunity to view the transcripts of the Supreme Court?” Justice Adderley asked.

“I perused them and still find the need of knowing if what was argued before the Supreme Court occurred in the committal proceedings,” Mr Roberts said.

The lawyer said he had been instructed that the committal proceedings had been concluded without the written authorisation of the wire tapping being tendered into evidence.

Franklyn Williams, deputy director of public prosecutors and Crown respondent, said that then ACP Reginald Ferguson had been recalled when the case was reopened for the sole purpose of submitting the “formal authorisation” to the court.

Mr Williams said this was preceded by legal arguments between counsel on whether or not the magistrate had the legal authority to reopen a committal proceeding for that purpose.

“The deputy chief magistrate, as she then was, determined that it was the case and ACP Ferguson was called for the sole purpose of those formal authorisations,” Mr Williams said.

The Crown respondent also noted that the Privy Council gave certain directions and from the ruling of the magistrate, had been taken into consideration “as she made a finding.”

“We have no issue with a short adjournment within the month of July,” Mr Williams added.

Mr Roberts, when allowed to respond, asked the judges: “How is the court going to make a determination if it doesn’t have the evidence before it?”

“We’re already 10 years down the road,” Justice Allen interjected.

Mr Williams conceded that the transcripts from the committal proceedings were not before the judge for the hearing below, but what the judge did rule on were the affidavits of the witnesses presented by counsel below in the matter.

Mr Roberts said he was not in possession of those affidavits.

The appellate court said it would adjourn the proceedings to July 2 in order to acquire the records before determining the way forward with the appeal.