Trinidadian loses extradition fight in the High Court

The High Court has dismissed an application for habeas corpus filed by a Trinidadian man who is fighting extradition to the United States on drug trafficking charges.

Justice Ricky Rahim delivered the ruling on December 11, upholding the decision of an extradition magistrate and rejecting Shurlan Guppy’s claims of entrapment and disproportionate interference with his family life.

Guppy was arrested on September 25, 2023, following an extradition request from the US.

He faces charges including conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine, attempted distribution, and distribution of narcotics in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Evidence against him includes intercepted communications, drug seizures, and cooperation from a US informant who allegedly identified Guppy as a supplier.

On July 31, acting Chief Magistrate Christine Charles found sufficient grounds to commit Guppy to await the Attorney General’s warrant for extradition.

Guppy subsequently filed a writ of habeas corpus, alleging entrapment and raising concerns about the impact of extradition on his autistic son.

Guppy’s legal team argued that US authorities used entrapment to build their case, claiming that Guppy was not a target until the informant implicated him and that financial inducements were offered to prompt criminal transactions.

Rahim found no evidence to support the claim of entrapment. He noted that the allegations against Guppy predated the purported inducements and included evidence of drug shipments, communications about narcotics, and activities involving Guppy’s father-in-law and wife.

“The record is rife with allegations separate from the payment transaction of US$5,000,” Rahim stated. He ruled that the accusations were made in good faith and aligned with the interests of justice.

“In the court’s view, it simply does not, as the information provided appears to demonstrate that the allegation is that the applicant was involved in the trade before that payment and that
that money was part of the payment of money already owed to the applicant for
previous sales of narcotics.

“When properly viewed, therefore, the applicant’s argument appears to be selective as it ignores and bypasses all of the other relevant information provided in the case record.

“The record is rife with allegations against the applicant that are separate and apart from
the payment transaction of US$5,000 such as evidence of conversations in which shipments of narcotics are discussed, the fact of the father-in-law lowering narcotics from his balcony down to the applicant and mailing of narcotics by the applicant amongst others.

“The court therefore cannot accept the submission that bad faith on the part of the requesting state attaches to the laying of the charges whether by way of an abuse of the court’s process or otherwise.

“The court accepts the learning set out by the applicant in so far as he submits on the rights of citizens under the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago but the argument cannot apply to the circumstances of this case and the court so finds.

“It is pellucid to the court that the decision to extradite the applicant, having regard to the information before the court could only be said to be in the interests of justice having regard to the nature and seriousness of the allegations and the absence of bad faith on the part of
the requesting state.”

Rahim also ruled that Guppy could raise similar arguments in the US courts.

“Ultimately, neither the magistrate nor the judge (in TT) is to decide the facts of the case against the applicant which remains solely within the remit of the trial court in the requesting state in any event.

“This applies equally to the defence of entrapment which is a matter for the trial court.

“The High Court may consider in general form, the information provided in the wider context of an argument of the absence of good faith under the statute.

In the round, therefore, the court finds that it is not satisfied that the accusations against the applicant were not made in good faith in the interests of justice.”

Rahim also said extradition arrangements were crucial to ensuring people do not see TT as a safe haven.

In his habeas corpus application, Guppy had argued that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his right to family life, guaranteed under Section 4(c) of the Trinidad and Tobago Constitution. His attorneys highlighted the needs of his autistic son who had been under Guppy’s care in Trinidad.

Rahim acknowledged the emotional toll on Guppy’s family but found no exceptional circumstances to justify barring extradition. The court emphasised that Guppy’s son, a US citizen, would receive superior care in the United States, where he resides with his mother.

“The evidence suggests that the child will obtain a level of care in the USA far superior to that shown by the applicant to be obtainable in TT,” Rahim wrote.

In weighing the public interest in extradition against Guppy’s family circumstances, the court underscored the seriousness of transborder drug trafficking and the need to uphold international extradition agreements.

Rahim noted that extradition would allow Guppy’s family to visit him in the US, preserving their relationship within the same jurisdiction.

“The public interest in extraditing persons accused of transborder international drug offences is great. This is so because of the incestuous criminal nature of those types of offences whereby the demand for narcotics of one territory is fulfilled by cross-border smuggling which is one of the allegations set out in the information in this case.”

Rahim added, “There is a high public interest in ensuring that extradition arrangements are
honoured so as to ensure in turn that persons do not see TT as a State willing to accept fugitives from justice.

“In this case, there has been a long-standing mutually respected and reliable relationship between the US and TT to extradition for the prosecution of drug offences committed in either territory.

“Therefore, the decision of the grand jury of the requesting state should be accorded a high degree of mutual confidence and respect.”

The court dismissed Guppy’s application and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Guppy, 47, is facing 11 charges of heroin and cocaine, worth US$1 million into Pennsylvania.

He also faces local charges of possessing a firearm, ammunition, and cocaine. Guppy has also been denied bail on those charges.

The local charges stemmed from items purportedly discovered at his rented home at Ascot Road, Goodwood Park, Westmoorings, and his Jeep Rubicon.

Guppy was arrested on September 26, 2023, at Ascot Road, Goodwood Park, Westmoorings.
An extradition warrant was issued on September 21, 2023, which led to Guppy’s arrest.

In TT, Guppy was represented by attorneys Wayne Sturge, Alexia Romero and Randall Raphael while Ravi Rajcoomar, SC, Netram Kowlessar, Raphael Ajodhia,Raydon Dalrymple-Watts and Ryan Rajcoomar.