Meng extradition case drags on with no end in sight

It has been almost two years since Canadian police, at behest of United States authorities, arrested Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou at Vancouver airport.

It has also been almost two years since Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were arrested for vague reasons related to “national security” by vindictive Chinese authorities.

Another Canadian, Robert Lloyd Schellenberg, was originally sentenced in 2016 to a 15-year term for drug smuggling but now faces a death penalty.

Over the past year, an estimated 200 plus Canadians have been detained or arrested in China. For the record, almost 900 have been arrested in the U.S.

In the case of Meng Wanzhou, she has enjoyed the luxury of one of her Vancouver houses — reading books, communicating with friends and lawyers, while Kovrig and Spavor are “enjoying” primitive Chinese prison conditions.

There are human rights issues related to China’s imprisonment of these two chaps, but human rights is a non-subject in totalitarian China.

And China’s Ambassador to Canada, Cong Peiwu, keeps threatening dire consequences for Canada if this country challenges China on human rights issues. I suggest to

Ambassador Peiwu that his interference in Canada’s advocacy of human rights issues is certainly not welcomed.

Back to Meng Wanzhou’s extradition case. Why has it been taking so long to resolve?

Extradition is a formal process, usually defined in treaties and enabling statutes, which permits one country to request return of an alleged offender from another country.

Inherently it involves a right to a fair hearing when a treaty is involved because extradition also has a subtle political component as it can entail comment on both country’s justice systems.

A request to extradite an alleged offender must meet a basic standard. The crime(s) the offender is alleged to have committed must be crimes in both countries. This is known as “double criminality.”

Conspiracy to commit an offence may also be included.

There are two circumstances where one country might choose not to extradite. Some countries will not extradite their own citizens. And some countries, such as Canada, will not extradite when an alleged offender, if convicted, would face cruel and unusual punishment including death.

Under normal circumstances Canada would likely never extradite anybody to China.

The extradition process focuses upon an extradition hearing. This is not a trial and thus evidence submitted to a judge conducting a hearing need not meet any evidentiary standard beyond reasonable.

Reasonable evidence or reasonable doubt are the dimensions with which a judge may make a decision to extradite or not. This is an essential first step even before an arrest can be made.

Then there is a major second step that relates to what is known as “double criminality.” Put simply, is the offence for which extradition is being sought an offence in Canada as well in the requesting country?

It is the question of double criminality which was the focus of Ms. Meng’s latest hearing and judicial decision this past Wednesday.

Meng’s lawyers had argued the allegations against her were essentially political. To the credit of Justice Heather Holmes and our legal system this assertion was rejected.

Unlike the U.S., Canada has not imposed sanctions on Iran. But a wholly owned affiliate of Huawei (of which Meng is a senior executive) known as Skycom (of which she also was an executive) had sought to arrange bank financing from HSBC in the U.S. in violation of American sanctions.

Justice Holmes concluded that a narrow definition of what constitutes double criminality was inappropriate as Canada’s obligations in international law relating to financial and economic crimes.

Holmes thus permitted an expansive interpretation of double criminality as it relates to Canada’s ability to entertain extradition applications.

Indeed, she stated while the allegations were unproven at this point, they might be taken as true in this case. This is a very expansive interpretation, but may reflect the increasing frequency with which economic crimes are being committed.

This case will go on for many more months, if not years. The stakes are high for China and that strange link between ostensibly private Chinese companies and the dictatorship.

In Canada, the decision of a hearing judge on an extradition application is not necessarily final. It may be persuasive, but the final decision to grant extradition rests with the federal Minister of Justice who may or may not sign an extradition order.

Ultimately a minister’s decision may be interpreted as a comment upon the requesting country’s justice system.

In the case of Meng Wanzhou, both the hearing judge and eventually the minister must be satisfied that crimes the U.S. alleges are also crimes in Canada — and if extradited she would receive fair treatment under the American justice system.

Extradition hearings, because they are not formal trials, usually do not need to take a long period of time. So why is Ms. Meng’s case taking so long?

Could it be Americans are struggling to meet the double criminality requirement and scrambling to build their case?

So, Ms. Meng’s extradition application will continue. Meanwhile, Canadians

Kovrig and Spavor will also likely continue as hostages within China’s dubious justice system.