Richard Morrison v The Minister of Justice

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Palmer, J
• Judgment Date: 04 February 2021
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. 2013HCV06463
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)

[2021] JMSC Civ 20

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

CIVIL DIVISION

CLAIM NO. 2013HCV06463

Between

Richard Morrison

Claimant

and

The Minister of Justice

1 ^st Defendant

and

The Attorney General of Jamaica

2 ^nd Defendant

Richard Morrison self-representing

Susan Reid instructed by the Director of State Proceedings on behalf of the 2 ^nd Defendant

Assessment of Damages — Extradition order made pursuant to the Extradition Act 1870 — Claimant's Writ of Habeas corpus application dismissed by the Full Court — Claimant filed notice of intention to appeal to the Privy Council — No such right of appeal existing under the Extradition Act — No appeal ever filed — Minister of Justice unaware of the notice due to administrative error and Claimant extradited without it being heard — Efforts by Jamaican Government to have Claimant returned to Jamaica unsuccessful — Claimant prosecuted on charges not on the extradition order — Doctrine of Specialty — Judgment entered on admission against the 2nd Defendant in respect of negligence and breach of constitutional rights — Claimant seeking general damages, aggravated and/or exemplary damages and vindicatory damages

Palmer, J

Background

1 Richard Morrison filed a claim on November 21, 2013, seeking against the Defendants, jointly and/or severally for breach of his Constitutional Rights, Negligence, Misfeasance and/or Nonfeasance in facilitating and/or allowing him to be extradited to the US in breach of the Extradition Treaty between the United States of America (US) and Jamaica. Prior to being sent to the US, he had filed a notice of an intended application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council (‘the notice’), but never pursued the appeal. He claims that the entire process was in breach of the Extradition Act and his constitutional rights and that his conviction arising out of the process was unlawful. Mr. Morrison served a prison sentence in the US and states in the claim that his imprisonment caused him personal injury, distress, loss and damage.

2 On November 30, 2016, Judgment on admission was given for the Claimant against the 2 ^nd Defendant in respect of negligence and breach of his constitutional rights. At the hearing for the assessment of damages, Mr. Morrison gave evidence and an order was made for the parties to file written submissions. When the matter commenced in 2013 Mr. Morrison had the benefit of Counsel, but by the time of the assessment hearing had opted to represent himself and filed his own submissions accordingly.

Case for the Claimant

3 The sequence of events leading up to the filing of Mr. Morrison's claim are largely undisputed. He recounted that on July 4, 1990, the Central Police Station detained him pending an identification parade on charges of alleged illegal possession of firearms and shooting with intent. No identification parade was ever held but on or about July 6, 1990, the US authorities presented an extradition request to the Jamaican. He remained in custody consequent upon that request.

4 Following an extradition hearing at the Resident Magistrate's Court at Sutton Street in Kingston, on or about February 19, 1991, the Court made an extradition order relating to Case No. 88-0652-Cr-Gonzales and Mr. Morrison was kept in custody to await surrender to the US for specific charges in the Southern District of Florida. The order related to the following:

• i. Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana;

• ii. Murder;

• iii. Attempted Murder; and

• iv. Conspiracy to commit murder as contained in an indictment.

5 On or about March 5, 1991, Mr. Morrison filed an application for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica, which was heard and dismissed by the Full Court on April 19, 1991. On or about April 29, 1991, Mr. Morrison filed a Notice of his intended application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against his extradition.

6 He stated that on June 5, 1991, a warrant for his surrender was executed and the then Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), apparently unaware of the pending notice of intention, informed the then Minister of Justice that the Claimant had no pending notice of intention to appeal to the Privy Council. Jamaican authorities surrendered Mr. Morrison to US authorities, which the then Minister of Justice said he would not have done he there been knowledge of the pending notice. On June 13, 1991, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs advised the US Embassy in Kingston by diplomatic note of the premature surrender of Mr. Morrison to their custody, and requested his immediate return to Jamaican authorities. Further to those efforts he said, on June 14, 1991, the Jamaican government presented a letter to the then US Attorney General, requesting Mr. Morrison's return to Jamaica to complete his appeal.

7 According to the claim, on June 14, 1991 at the Claimant's detention hearing in the US, the Jamaican government made representation through their Attorney-at-law, Peter E. George, seeking the return of the Claimant to Jamaica forthwith and a stay of the criminal proceedings in view of the filing of the notice. Notwithstanding these efforts, Mr. Morrison stated that the Jamaican Government's attorney did not object to the Fort Myers District Court's exercise of jurisdiction over him, in violation of the Doctrine of Specialty relating to the US/Jamaica extradition treaty, but only asked for a stay of the criminal proceedings.

8 He also stated that on June 19, 1991, the then Government of Jamaica, filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the US seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and ultimately for the Claimant's immediate return to Jamaica. (See Government of Jamaica v. United States, Middle District of Florida Case No. 2:91-157-ClV-FTM-98D). Mr. Morrison expressed his view that witnesses who gave evidence in support of the petition were a part of this collusion by failing to mention in their testimony that he was not extradited for any Middle District case and that the US is in violation of the rule of specialty. On April 6, 1995, he stated, the then Jamaican government also lodged a formal protest to the US Department of State pertaining to the breach of the rule of specialty.

9 Mr. Morrison submitted that the Jamaican Government had no legal authority to consent or make any deal with the US after he left the jurisdiction of Jamaica, as the extradition treaty had no consent clause to allow for him to be tried for a crime other than that for which he was ordered extradited. He intimated that the Jamaican Government had improper motives in failing to take further steps to have his conviction overturned and have him repatriated.

10 Despite his assertion of a suppression of the fact that he was being prosecuted for offences other than those in the extradition order, Mr. Morrison acknowledged that the then Senior Assistant Attorney General gave evidence that the only case for which he was extradited was case No. 88-0652-Cr-Gonzales not case No. 89-57-Cr-FTM-13, a clear contradiction of that assertion.

11 Mr. Morrison recounted that on September 24, 1994, the US District Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, filed a motion to dismiss indictment No. 88-0652-Cr-Gonzales, for lack of evidence. He stated that the Dual Criminality Clause of the US/Jamaica extradition treaty required that the evidence presented by the US for his extradition, be strong enough to prosecute him under Jamaican law, had the crime been committed in Jamaica. This finding in the US, he submitted, demonstrated that the requirements of the Dual Criminality Clause were totally ignored by the judge at the Sutton Street Magistrate Court in the making of the extradition order. He submitted that this amounted to gross negligence and resulted in damage to him.

12 Mr. Morrison submitted that he relies on the following to ground his claim of damages for negligence:

• a. Stating that the he did not have a Notice of Intention to apply to Her Majesty in Council pending;

• b. Failure to search their offices, or at all, or adequately, to discover the Notice of Intention to the Privy Council which had been served on their offices;

• c. Failure to keep the Notice of Intention to apply to the Privy Council in a safe and proper place;

• d. Failure to keep any or any proper records, having been served with the said Notice;

• e. Failure to retain competent Counsel to represent them and by extension the Claimant's interest in the United States of America;

• f. Failure to instruct or properly instruct the law firm Holland and Knight to represent the Claimant's interest by putting all relevant matters in a full chronology to the Court;

• g. Failure to challenge the Fort Myers District Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction as conferred by the Doctrine of Specialty of the US/UK/Jamaica extradition treaty;

• h. Failure to inform the US that it was in breach of the Doctrine of Specialty of the US/UK/Jamaica extradition treaty.

13 He submitted that he relied on the following as being evidence of a breach of his Constitutional Rights to Due Process of Law and enshrined right to liberty:

• a) Suppression of the material fact that he was not extradited for the Fort Myers indictment;

• b) Instructing the law firm Holland and Knight to omit the violation of the Doctrine of Specialty from any submissions to be made in the Middle District of Florida, US District Courts;

• c) Failure to take care that the he was surrendered to the Southern District of Florida District Court (Miami);

• d) Failure to inform the United States that it lacked personal jurisdiction over him pursuant to Article 7, the Doctrine of Specialty term of the US/UK/Jamaica extradition treaty;

• e) Failure to act or act sufficiently to ensure his safe return to Jamaica;

• f) The improper filing of a...