Both rulings came within 48 hours.
The Bahamas Constitution gives the Minister of Foreign Affairs the final say as to whether an extradition committal order should be signed for a Bahamian citizen’s transfer to another court jurisdiction.
The United Kingdom-based Privy Council, after listening to arguments on Jan. 12 and 13, handed down their 3-2 ruling on Monday, while the Bahamian Court of Appeal (COA) dismissed an appeal against a second set of charges on Tuesday.
COA president Dame Joan Sawyer, assisted by Justices Maurice Churaman and Lorris Ganpatsingh, said the decision would be put in writing after a unanimous decision that the appeal had no merit, and was dismissed.
Knowles was not in court yesterday for the ruling, as he took ill and waived his right to appear before the proceedings. His attorneys, Queen’s Counsel Edward Fitzgerald and Roger Minnis declined to comment on the rulings.
‘Sense of relief’
Francis Cumberbatch, who has argued the case since 2001, said, “I feel a sense of relief. The first case is three years old; that’s three years a team of us headed by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions has been working. And then the other case which was concluded today by the Court of Appeal, that case we have worked on for two years continually, as well.”
He was assisted in court yesterday by Eurika Wilkinson Charlton.
‘Not persuaded’
Fitzgerald sought to have a decision by Justice John Lyons dismissing applications of habeas corpus (unlawful detention) and judicial review overturned. The latter application sought to determine whether the committing magistrate erred in law when the decision to commit was made.
On Aug. 28, 2003, Justice Lyons ruled that he was not persuaded by the arguments raised by Fitzgerald regarding Knowles’ release. The appeal stemmed from Magistrate Carolita Bethel’s decision on Dec. 16, 2002 to commit Knowles for extradition to the United States for alleged drug-related acts committed during 1995-96.
His appeal bid failed at the COA, but if he chooses he still has the option of appealing the decision to the Privy Council again.
Appeal at the Privy Council
Lawyers for Knowles completed arguments at the Privy Council in January in an attempt to have him released from extradition for drug charges.
The U.S. has alleged that Knowles, along with Frank Cartwright, and Lemuel Gibson conspired to possess cocaine and marijuana with the intent to distribute between Nov. 11, 1997 and Dec. 8, 2000. On the same date they are alleged to have conspired to import the mentioned drugs into the United States.
Gibson, who was also affected by the Court of Appeals’ decision on Jan. 22, 2003 to commit the trio to stand drug charges, remains at large. His decision was not appealed to the PC – only Knowles’ and Cartwright’s.
Knowles, Cartwright, and Gibson were all committed for extradition to the U.S. by Magistrate Bethel on Oct. 5, 2001.
Quashed ruling restored
The men appealed the decision to the Supreme Court where Justice Jon Isaacs heard applications for habeas corpus and judicial review.
Justice Isaacs ruled that Magistrate Bethel erred in law when she treated the evidence of key witness Herbert ‘Sharkhead’ Hanna as admissible and direct evidence.
As the committing magistrate relied on Hanna’s evidence when weighing up the case, Justice Isaacs ordered the committal orders void and released the men.
He made no ruling on the judicial review application.
The Government of the United States and the Superintendent of Her Majesty’s Prison appealed Justice Isaacs’ decision to the COA. The first issue that arose was whether the COA had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and if they did, the question was raised on whether Justice Isaacs was correct.
The president of the COA and two other justices held that there was jurisdiction to hear the appeal. They found that Justice Isaacs had erred in law when he set aside the magistrate’s order and ruled for judicial review, rather than habeas corpus, as Mr. Fitzgerald stated. The appeal was allowed and the committal order restored.
Findings of Privy Council
Five justices listened to Knowles’ case and at the end of the day three ruled to dismiss. After reviewing the facts of the case the justices held that Justice Isaacs had erred in law.
“Mr. Fitzgerald has not persuaded the board that the Court of Appeal was wrong,” the judgment stated, in announcing the dismissal of the appeal.
The Privy Council lords said that “The Requesting State (U.S.) made out a strong case for extradition.”
Jimenita Swain, The Nassau Guardian
