Boyd (Delroy) v The Commissioner of Correctional Services & DPP

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: COOKE, J.A. (Acta.1)
• Judgment Date: 18 February 2004
• Neutral Citation: JM 2004 CA 1
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2004] 2 JJC 1801
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 18 February 2004

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BEFORE:

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE FORTE, P THE HON. MR. JUSTICE PANTON, J.A THE HON. MR. JUSTICE COOKE, J.A. (Actg.)

BETWEEN:

DELROY BOYD

APPELLANT

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

1 ^ST RESPONDENT

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

2 ^nd RESPONDENT

Lord Gifford Q.C., & Hugh Thompson, instructed by Gifford, Thompson & Bright for the appellant

Katherine Francis & Kevin Page instructed by Director of State Proceedings for the 1 ^st respondent, & Herbert McKenzie, Crown Counsel for the 2 ^nd respondent

EXTRADITION - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Conspiracy to possess cocaine - Whether there was a prima facie case - Extradition Act, s. 5

COOKE, J.A. (Acta.1)

1 When the hearing of this appeal commenced, the appellant, a Jamaican citizen, was in custody at the Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre pending his delivery to the United States of America to stand trial in that country. He was there because of the following sequence of events.

• (i) By diplomatic notes dated the 24 ^th April, 2002 and the 24 ^th September, 2002 the United States requested the provisional arrest of the appellant for the purpose of his extradition to that State to stand trial on two counts:

  • (a) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana; and

  • (b) conspiracy to import cocaine and marijuana.

• (ii) The Jamaican Government on the 7 ^th of October 2002 authorized proceedings in respect of the request.

• (iii) The appellant having been duly arrested, a Resident Magistrate for the Corporate Area after a hearing, issued a warrant of committal whereby he was to be placed in custody prior to his surrender to the United States. This was on the 20 ^th November 2002.

• (iv) The appellant then sought to move the Full Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. He failed as his application to the Supreme Court was dismissed on the 11 ^th June 2003.

2 It is against the decision of the Full Court that the appellant took issue in this court. He succeeded. The appeal was allowed. The order of the Full Court was set aside and a writ of habeas corpus was issued. Costs were awarded to the appellant.

3 Four grounds of appeal were filed. The first three were each different formulations of the central complaint which was that the evidence tendered by way of affidavits did not establish a prima facie case against the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant could not be extradited. The fourth ground was not pursued.

4 ?

5 Before this question can be answered, it is necessary to refer to The Extradition Act and the Justices of the Peace Jurisdiction Act. Section 5 of The Extradition Act as is material is in these terms:

"5.- (1) For the purposes of this Act, any offence of which a person is accused or has been convicted in an approved State is an extradition offence, if -

• (a) in the case of an offence against the law of a designated Commonwealth State -

  • (i) it is an offence ...

  • (ii) ...

• (b) in the case of an offence against the law of a treaty State -

  • (i) it is an offence which is provided for by the extradition treaty with that State; and

  • (ii) the act or omission constituting the offence, or the equivalent act or omission, would constitute an offence against the law of Jamaica if it took place within Jamaica or, in the case of an extra-territorial offence, in corresponding circumstances outside Jamaica."

6 There is no debate that the United States is "a treaty State". For the purposes of this case the concluding words of 5(l)(b)(ii) falls for consideration. These are: "or, in the case of an extra-territorial offence, in corresponding circumstances outside Jamaica." It is agreed that on a proper construction of these words, the effect is that the alleged conspiracies of which it is said that the appellant is a party only become extraditable offences if the result of those conspiracies would be a commission of criminal offences in the United States of America. It has to be shown that the appellant was involved in a conspiracy, the object of which was the importation of drugs into the United States. See Liangsiriprasert v United States Government and another [1990] 2 All E.R. 866. This was a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is sufficient to refer to part of the...