Extradition hearing: Prosecution given time to respond to defense
Around 3:15 this afternoon, Magistrate Stephens informed the former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Terrance Williams, who is spearheading the case, that she will give him ample time to respond. In light of this, the hearing will resume on February 24, 2012.
The extradition hearing began last Friday and centres around Earl ‘Bob’ Hodge, Chad Skelton, Juan Valdez, Carlston Beazer and Roberto Harrigan who are wanted in the Southern District of Florida for narco-trafficking charges. They are jointly charged with conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States.
Meanwhile, the North Carolina District has requested the extradition of Hodge to allegedly face conspiracy to import cocaine.
However, Hodge’s lawyer Julian Knowles, QC, eloquently stated during his submission earlier today that the Governor may not have been advised wisely when he gave his stamp of approval to proceed with the hearing.
According to Knowles, “There was some confusion on the part of the Governor on how to proceed. Extradition law as applied to Territories like the BVI is not easy; it is complex and difficult…it is an 1870 legislation that applies to this extradition matter not the 1989 legislation as is quoted by the DPP.”
The QC further stated that it was “absolutely clever” that the DPP was the source of advice for the Governor based on the testimony of Sian Evans of the Governor’s Office on Friday, February 3, 2012.
“The Authority to proceed quoted in the 1989 Act, but a schedule of the Act stated that it is only applicable once an order has been made in council…to my knowledge no such order has been made and that the DPP omitted to state so. The 1989 Act applies to the BVI when the request is from certain countries and a United States is not on the list,” Knowles pointed out.
He added, “I think that is why this confusion has come because of misunderstanding of the Act: You have no valid document, you have no jurisdiction…a number of consequences follow. The Governor purports to exercise powers he does not have because his DPP forwarded him the wrong Act. There is nothing unusual about that and in a sense. He is purporting to exercise power he does not have and failed to take things into consideration. Taking it all together this case started from a foundation that is not a safe foundation….you must forthwith discharge the men in custody because you don’t have any jurisdiction.”
His submission was backed by Tana’nia Small, Skelton’s lawyer. She noted that a serious submission had been made and pointed out the men had been detained when the court has no jurisdiction.Likewise, Richard Rowe, Beazer’ lawyer, said the submission raised a fundamental issue about jurisdiction and added ‘It was not an ambush.”
Valdez’s lawyer, Stephen Daniels announced that Knowles’ submission “is very serious and complex” while Patrick Thompson, Harrigan’s lawyer, bluntly stated that the Crown should have verify the law before “embarking on the extradition.”
.png)
Follow Us On
20 Responses to “Extradition hearing: Prosecution given time to respond to defense”