Leys says extradition request for Coke did not follow normal procedures

Solicitor General, Douglas Leys, told the Commission of Enquiry into the handling of the extradition request for Christopher “Dudus” Coke on Tuesday (February 8) that the first time he spoke about the extradition request was on or about August 26, 2009.

He noted that the conversation was between himself and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Senator Hon. Dorothy Lightbourne.

He said the Minister was concerned that the circumstances under which she had received the extradition request for Mr. Coke were particularly unusual, in that proper procedures and protocol had not been followed.

The Solicitor General said proper formal procedure dictates that an extradition request should be forwarded through the diplomatic channel, namely the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade.

He said, however, that on the following day, the Minister informed him that she had received the authenticated documents from the United States Embassy.

“The first task I undertook was to check the documents against the requirements of the treaty, because Article Nine of the treaty sets out the documents which should form the request,” he said. 

Mr. Leys said he conducted a review of the evidence, which formed the basis of the request. He then consulted Deputy Solicitor General, Lackston Robinson, on the course to take, as he was the “point man” in the office on extradition matters.

He said that, based on that conversation, he and Mr. Robinson came to the conclusion that the evidence submitted by the US Embassy, did not reach the required standard and that more information was needed to put the Minister in a position to exercise her statutory discretion properly under the Extradition Act.                                                  

Mr. Leys said subsequent to the submission of several memoranda between himself, the Deputy Solicitor General and the Attorney General, contact was made with the Charge d’Affaires at the US Embassy, Isaiah Parnell. A meeting was held in early December, 2009 at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, attended by the Charge d’Affaires, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hon. Dr. Kenneth Baugh, Senator Lightbourne, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry, Ambassador Evadney Coye, and himself. 

“We discussed the issues arising out of the extradition, in particular some responses the US government had given to some questions,” Mr. Leys testified. “The fulcrum of that meeting had to do with the interception of communication evidence, which reliance was placed on in the request.”

The Solicitor General said very little progress was made at that meeting, however it was agreed that the technical teams from each country would meet, to further discuss the legal issues involved, particularly as it related to the interception of communication.

Under cross examination by Attorney-at-law, Hugh Small, representing the Prime Minister, Hon. Bruce Golding, Mr. Leys said that he first saw the controversial Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) in March 2010. He noted that if he was privy to the document, prior to its execution, he would have advised that the matter be brought before Cabinet.

“In my view, where these MOUs have far reaching implications, namely constitutional implications, then surely before the Minister signs, there should be some directive from the Cabinet,” he said.

Mr. Leys said it would also be important for Cabinet to look to the Office of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for advice, as to any tension that may exist between the document and the Interception of Communications Act, the Constitution of Jamaica and any other statute.

The Solicitor General further testified, under questioning from Mr. Small, that if an application were to be made by the appropriate intelligence agencies to the Attorney General’s Office for an interception of communication to be made under the MOU in question, it would be rejected.

“We would reject it, because the law requires that prior to the intercept order being granted, the police must show the reason why they want to intercept a particular telephone or instrument, as the case may be. Then the order is granted, and then the intercept equipment, and I suppose operations are invoked,” he said.                                                

Mr. Leys also stated that, under the Interception of Communications Act, there was no basis on which a judge could make an order which is “extra-territorial in effect”. In that it could not be shared with intelligence officers of a foreign state.

He said as the statue now stands it would have to be amended to permit such an occurrence. The Solicitor General was further cross examined when the Commission met on Wednesday (February 9).   

CONTACT: ATHALIAH REYNOLDS