The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

FIVE men who believe a Supreme Court judge erred in affirming a committal order for them to face drug trafficking charges in the United States will have their appeals heard on November 30.

A status hearing was held in the Court of Appeal yesterday for Austin Knowles, Nathaniel Knowles, Edison Watson, Ian Bethel and Shawn Saunders who have exercised their legal right to appeal the decision made by Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs in May that would surrender them to the US.

Damian Gomez, QC, who represents the first four appellants, told Justices Dame Anita Allen, Jon Isaacs and Stella Crane-Scott that parts of the record from the committal proceedings were still outstanding.

Justice Isaacs asked if they were significantly important to the success of the appeal.

Mr Gomez said they were important and had not been available “in full in Supreme Court.”

“I was wondering if we should make an order to get them if they are pertinent to the appeal,” Dame Anita said.

“These are the documents that were not before the judge whose decision you are appealing?” Justice Crane-Scott asked for clarity.

Mr Gomez said they were.

“Why should we be looking for what may not even be available?” Justice Crane-Scott then asked.

Mr Gomez said the appellants may argue a ground that the judge erred in casting blame for the delay on the appellants.

“Were the appellants ever served with the documents?” Dame Anita asked.

“In prison, yes. I did not act originally. I only came on during the extradition proceedings. I received, for one of them, a bundle,” Mr Gomez answered.

“Isn’t their case basically the same?” Dame Anita asked.

“It’s based on the same allegations,” the lawyer said.

Neil Braithwaite, assistant director of public prosecutions, told the court that there were separate bundles because of the manner in which the proceedings in Magistrate’s Court occurred.

“But the documents contained in each bundle were the same,” Mr Braithwaite said.

He questioned if the Court of Appeal and the appellants had different records because as he understood it, nothing was missing from the court’s file.

He noted that Mr Gomez’s one full bundle could be copied for the remaining appellants.

The appellate court inquired about a copy of the authority to proceed (ATP), which the Crown had and undertook to provide for the appellants and the court.

The substantive appeal hearing was set for November 30.

The five, who have been on bail since 2005, will remain on bail in the interim.

Then Acting Foreign Affairs Minister Marcus Bethel granted the go-ahead for the extradition proceedings to commence against the men in February 2003.

Then magistrate Carolita Bethell approved the extradition request in 2004 and committed the men to prison to await extradition. However, they applied for and were granted bail in 2005.

Their habeas corpus application, which was stalled for more than a decade, was launched on a number of grounds including: it would be unjust and oppressive to extradite the applicants after the case remained dormant for so long and that the proceedings were invalid due to breach of the provisions of the Extradition Act.

Earlier this year, Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs of the Supreme Court disagreed with the merits of their arguments led by Mr Gomez, one of five lawyers on record for the men.

“What the applicants have offered to discharge the burden of establishing that it would be unjust and oppressive to extradite them as a result of the passage of time are individual affidavits describing how their family lives have evolved during the currency of these proceedings,” the Supreme Court judge said.

“Those histories cannot form the basis for concluding that to extradite the applicants would be unjust or oppressive. In any event, as a matter of law, whether or not the extradition is unjust or oppressive, in the sense that a fair trial cannot be had, can only be determined by the trial court,” the judge added.

Senior Justice Isaacs further stressed that the applicants “have failed to establish that a prima facie case was not made out by the evidence before the committal court.”

“Whether or not that evidence is credible is a matter for the trial court,” the court ruled.

The judge found the decision of the magistrate was “sound” and ultimately dismissed their applications.

Osman Johnson appeared for Saunders in yesterday’s status hearing and will argue his appeal.