Judge: Magistrates still have jurisdiction in extraditions

MAGISTRATES continue to have jurisdiction in extradition cases, despite the passage of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act (AJIPA), which abolished preliminary inquiries.

Justice Ricky Rahim made the declaration that AJIPA did not remove a magistrate’s jurisdiction under the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act on July 23.

He also declared that the Extradition Act gave magistrates jurisdiction and powers over a special criminal process independent of their power to conduct committal proceedings.

“The court is of the view that the Extradition Act creates a clear and separate process of extradition that is a criminal process of a special kind in respect of which criminal standards and the evidential procedure applies.

“It involves the issuance of warrants, the deprivation of liberty of the subject, issues of bail, remand to prison, the assessment of the sufficiency of evidence in relation to the commission of criminal offences and matters of the like.

“It is also the case that an appeal from a decision of the magistrate is civil in nature,” Rahim said.

He was ruling on an interpretation claim filed by the Attorney General to determine a magistrate’s jurisdiction in extradition cases under the new law.

The interpretation claim was filed in June. It sought to have the court determine whether the AJIPA removed or affected a magistrate’s jurisdiction and powers in extradition cases. The act, proclaimed in December 2023, abolished preliminary inquiries for indictable offences and other related matters.

The claim said there was no reference in AJIPA to extradition matters filed under the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act.

It was the AG’s position that extradition matters were
sui generis (in a class of their own) so the magistrate’s jurisdiction remained. The question was raised by concerns over the extradition of a Trinidadian man wanted in the US on an attempted murder charge. In that case, Vincent Roberts was arrested on April 17 on a warrant for allegedly attempting to murder his ex-girlfriend in February 2021 in Brooklyn, New York, after she refused to rekindle the relationship.

The issue arose in May before acting chief magistrate Christine Charles, who is presiding over Roberts’s extradition.

Attorneys had questioned the acting chief magistrate’s jurisdiction and powers under the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act and whether the AJIPA had removed any .

However, the interpretation claim said the matter was for the Supreme Court to determine as it concerned the jurisdiction of an inferior court.

“The determination of this issue by the court is manifestly urgent, important and in the public interest,” the AG’s interpretation claim said.

It also said the issues of law needed to be urgently resolved so that Roberts’s extradition case could proceed.

Charles’s position was that AJIPA removed a magistrate’s powers under the Extradition Act.

In his ruling, Rahim said while magistrates' jurisdiction under the Extradition Act was akin to their powers in a preliminary inquiry, the objective of an extradition was not the same, so “the nature and scope of the power must remain the same unless specifically changed by statute.

“It follows that the magistrate retains the jurisdiction to adjudicate over extradition hearings…The legislative source of the jurisdiction and power is the Extradition Act and not the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act.

Rahim added, “So that there is essentially a special hybrid character to extradition proceedings on the whole.

“In so far as the magistrate is concerned, however, the procedure remains criminal in substance and form.

“To that end, the court refrains from finding that the extradition process is
sui generis in the strict legal sense and prefers to consider that a special criminal process is created at the level of the magistrate’s court."

The AG was represented by Ravi Rajcoomar, SC, Raphael Ajodhia, Netran Kowlessar and Raydon Dalrymple Watts.

Attorney Kiev Chesney appeared for Roberts and Christophe Rodriguez appeared for the acting chief magistrate.