Fugitive murder accused appeals dismissal of challenge to extradition
Fugitive murder accused Troy Thomas has appealed the High Court’s dismissal of his challenge to the jurisdiction of the magistracy to hear proceedings initiated to extradite him to the United States, where he is wanted for murder.
Thomas, of South Ozone Park, Queens, New York, is wanted by US authorities for the December 11th, 2011 murder of Keith Frank.
He is being represented by attorneys Bernard Da Silva, Nigel Hughes and Darren Wade.
In his notice of appeal, filed and served on the Attorney General on Wednesday, Thomas is seeking to have the Guyana Court of Appeal set aside Justice Jo-Ann Barlow’s finding that it is neither illegal nor a breach of his constitutional rights for the lower court to proceed with the matter.
Earlier this year, lawyers for Thomas had argued that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the extradition proceedings as it lacked the power to determine whether their client’s fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution, had been infringed upon and had urged that the matter be referred to the High Court for the issue to be resolved.
Among other things, the appellant has advanced that the judge’s decision is fundamentally bad in law in that she failed to take into consideration the separation of powers principle that one arm of the state should not, and cannot trespass on the jurisdiction of another arm of state.
Fundamentally bad in law also, Thomas argues, was Justice Barlow’s failure to consider that Section 3(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Amendment Act of 2009 is a usurpation of the powers of the judiciary by the legislature since parliament, consisting of the National Assembly and the President, cannot direct a court on how it should interpret any law or provision of a treaty.
Earlier this year, Minister of Public Security Khemraj Ramjattan had authorised proceedings for Thomas’ extradition, following which Minister of Foreign Affairs Carl Greenidge had issued a certificate that confirmed that there is an extradition agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, which is enforced in Guyana.
In her ruling, Justice Barlow declared that Section 8(3) of the Fugitive Offenders Act authorised the extradition of a person to a Commonwealth country or treaty territory regardless of what is stated in any other law or treaty, once the minister considered that it was in the interest of justice.
The section states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3)(b) or any other law or treaty, a fugitive offender or any class or category of fugitive offenders may be committed to, or kept in, custody for the purpose of extradition or may be extradited to a Commonwealth country or a treaty territory in connection with any extraditable offence, if the Minster considers it necessary in the interest of justice.”
The judge had contended that the minister would have taken all things into consideration when arriving at his decision, and that he would be at liberty to exercise his discretion once all things were taken into account.
She called “untenable” the applicant’s claim that the amendment to the local legislation (the Fugitive Offenders Act) was an attempt to amend the treaty, while stating that it instead amended part of domestic legislation.
In his notice of appeal, however, Thomas is arguing that the judge misdirected herself in law