B.C. court upholds extradition of pair accused of honour killing of Jaswinder Sidhu in India

Sidhu and Badesha have long opposed their surrender to India, arguing they would face violence and torture in Indian prisons. The country is seeking their extradition for the offence of conspiracy to commit murder.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in September 2017 to set aside a previous B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that had stopped extradition proceedings. In 2017, after the Supreme Court held a hearing but before it made its decision, Sidhu and Badesha both filed new affidavits to the federal justice minister and requested she reconsider their removal from Canada.

The affidavits included statements from two of their co-accused in India who had been convicted at trial but acquitted on appeal. The men described “shocking” prison conditions and included allegations by one of the accused of being beaten and tortured. The federal justice minister had not yet responded to their reconsideration request on Sept. 20, 2017, when the RCMP commenced a covert operation to fly the pair to India. Police flew them from Vancouver to Toronto and they were scheduled to board a flight to Delhi that night.

When news of their extradition broke in Indian media outlets that day, counsel for Sidhu and Badesha contacted a lawyer for the Department of Justice.

The lawyer wrote in an email that afternoon that the pair would not be surrendered until the justice minister made a decision on their reconsideration request. However, if Wilson-raybould decided not to reconsider the decision, the pair may be “immediately removed,” the lawyer said.

Sidhu and Badesha’s lawyers filed an application for judicial review in the B.C. Court of Appeal at 6:30 p.m. Pacific time, prompting the pair to be stopped while boarding a plane that was scheduled to leave just 30 minutes later.

The appeal court found that the minister planned to refuse their reconsideration request that day and intended for the pair to be removed from Canada immediately afterward, without giving them an opportunity to consult counsel or file for a judicial review.

The department and minister failed to exercise their authority with restraint, even-handedness and fair-mindedness, and as a result there has been a ``very serious adverse impact on the integrity of the justice system,’’ the judges wrote. “Looked at holistically, this conduct might be justified by some as ‘just desserts’ for two applicants who had their day in this country’s highest court and were filing a weak case for reconsideration in an effort to frustrate their timely extradition to India. They were dragging out the process with delay, delay, delay,” the judges wrote.

“That motivation would be understandable in a segment, perhaps a large one of Canadian society. But, respectfully, it is not one that can motivate the Department of Justice or the Minister of Justice.”