In a decision that could have huge implications for persons facing extraditions from The Bahamas, the Privy Council has ruled that it is up to the court in a country requesting extradition to decide whether a defendant could get a fair trial in the foreign state.
The Privy Council said that the United States must be trusted to secure a fair trial in such matters.
The ruling comes as accused drug trafficker Samuel “Ninety” Knowles continues to wait for the high court in London to hear his case. His attorneys argue that the “Drug Kingpin” label placed on him by the United States president could prejudice his trial if he were to be extradited.
The new decision from the high court relates specifically to a case out of St. Kitts and Nevis in which two suspects – Noel Heath and Glenroy Matthew – also asked the Privy Council to rule that because of their formal designation by the president of the United States on June 2, 2000 as global drug traffickers under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, they could not get a fair trial in the United States.
Their attorney argued that there is a real risk that they would suffer a flagrant denial of justice.
But the Privy Council said there was no merit to the argument.
While the ruling relates specifically to the St. Kitts and Nevis case and while the high court considered other arguments in this matter, the Privy Council’s decisions from other jurisdictions are of great persuasive authority.
In the case of capital punishment for instance, the Privy Council set precedence that impacted all other matters to follow in multi-jurisdictions – including, for example, its determination that it would be cruel and inhumane to execute a convict after holding him or her in prison for five years or more.
Restating a determination made by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Privy Council said, “Our courts must assume that [the defendant] will be given a fair trial in the foreign country. Matters of due process generally are to be left for the courts to determine at the trial there as they would be if he were to be tried there.
“Attempts to pre-empt decisions on such matters, whether arising through delay or otherwise, would directly conflict with the principles of comity on which extradition is based.”
The court also borrowed language from another ruling saying that, “The proper forum for a complaint about publicity is the trial court.”
In the case of Knowles, his legal team wants the high court to determine that there are substantial grounds that indicate that he might not receive a fair trial in the United States.
Knowles had won his case before the Supreme Court in June 2004 when Justice Hugh Small ruled that President George W. Bush’s designation of Knowles as a drug kingpin was “prejudicial” to him.
In his ruling, Justice Small said that the courts of The Bahamas and other countries “frequently” have to deal with instances where events or publications tend to have a prejudicial effect on the rights of persons accused of criminal offences.
“It is probable that there will be additional publicity of the presidential designation when the trial is scheduled to commence,” he said. “The courts in the United States have virtually no power to prevent publication of this information.”
But the prosecution had maintained that Knowles’s designation as a foreign narcotics trafficker did not affect the trial process.
A defense attorney had said, however, that the United States had already indicated that any prospective juror who has specific knowledge that President Bush designated Knowles as a foreign narcotics trafficker would be unable to sit as a juror in his trial.
During the Supreme Court matter, David Gardey, who was the principal prosecutor assigned to the case, had said the presidential designation of Knowles has no bearing at any stage of the prosecution and had nothing to do with any determination of guilt or innocence at a criminal trial.
Justice Small determined otherwise, but the Court of Appeal later overturned that ruling, which resulted in the appeal to the Privy Council.
Knowles was identified by the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report March 2001 as a major Bahamian drug trafficker who was extradited from Jamaica to the Bahamas in 2001.
The United States has charged Knowles with conspiracy to import cocaine and marijuana, conspiracy to possess cocaine and marijuana with the intent to distribute the drugs, distribution of cocaine and marijuana, and importation of cocaine and marijuana into the United States.
Regarding the St. Kitts and Nevis case, the Privy Council said that the extradition matter against Heath and Matthew should proceed. Both are alleged to have conspired to supply and import cocaine into the US.
In the case of Knowles, he would have to wait for May 2006 for his case to be heard. In the meantime, he is being held at Her Majesty’s Prison in Fox Hill.
Source: The Bahama Journal
