Leroy King Claimant v [1] The Attorney General [2] Minister of Foreign Affairs Defendants
| Jurisdiction | Antigua and Barbuda |
| Judge | Ramdhani J.,Darshan Ramdhani |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 2017 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2017] ECSC J0419-1 |
| Court | High Court (Antigua) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. ANUHCV 2012/0220 |
| Date | 19 April 2017 |
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CIVIL)
The Hon. Mr. Darshan Ramdhani
High Court Judge (Ag.)
CLAIM NO. ANUHCV 2012/0220
IN THE MATTER of sections 3, 5, 14, 15 and 18 of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda
IN THE MATTER of sections 12 – 15 of the Extradition Act 1993
IN THE MATTER of the decision of the 2 nd Respondent to order the Applicant's return to the United States of America as contained in a letter dated the 23 rd March 2012 and further embodied in a warrant dated 30 th March 2012
IN THE MATTER of an Application for an Administrative Order and leave to apply for judicial review
IN THE MATTER of CPR 26.1(2)(w), 26.1(6), 26.9(3) and 56.8
Dr. David Dorsett and Mr. Fitzmore Harris for the Claimant/Applicant
Ms. Bridget Nelson, Senior Crown Counsel for the Attorney General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Anthony Armstrong, Director of Public Prosecutions for the United States Government
Cases considered:
1. A and others v United Kingdom (App no 3455/05) — [2009]
2. Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence or Royal Netherlands Government [1943] AC 147 Government of United States v Bowe [1990]
3. Arorangi Timberland Ltd v Minister of the Cook Islands national Superannuation Fund [2016] UKPC 32
4. Atanasova v Holloway & Amor [2009] EWHC 2740 (Admin)
5. Attorney General v Issac ANU HCVAP 2015/0014
6. Attorney General of Barbados v Joseph and Boyce [2006] CCJ 3 (AJ) , 87 WIR 178
7. Bahamas Hotel Maintenance & Allied Workers v Bahamas Hotel Catering & Allied Workers . [2011] UKPC 4at [23]
8. Belize Alliance of Conservation Non-Governmental Organisations v. Department of the Environment [2004] UKPC 6 at [86] –[87]
9. Bentley v The Government of the USA [2005] EWHC 1078 Admin
10. Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143
11. Bushell v. Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 75
12. Central Broadcasting Services Ltd v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2006] UKPC 35 , [2006] 1 WLR 2891
13. f CanadaDH and others v Czech Republic — (2007) 23 BHRC 526
14. Fuller v A.G. 79 W.I.R 173
15. Garcia Alva v Germany [2001] ECHR 23541/94
16. Government of United States v Bowe [1990] 1 AC 42
17. Hamza and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department 455/11
18. Ismail v Secretary of State for Home Department [2013] EWHC 663 (Admin) . [2013] WLR (D) 133
19. Knowles Jr v. United States of America & Anor (The Bahamas) [2006] UKPC 38 (24 July 2006)
20. Lucas v Chief Education Officer [2015] CCJ 15 (AJ) , 87 WIR 178
21. Matthews v Ministry of Defence [20003] UKHL 4 , [2003] 1 AC 1163
22. Maya Leaders Alliance v The Attorney General of Belize [2015] CCJ 15 (AJ) , 87 WIR 178
23. Mooren v Germany (App no 11364/03) — [2009]
24. Opara v. N.E.O.C.C. Warden Case NO. 4:14 CV 0827 (N.D.) Ohio, 2014
25. Omar v. France judgment of 29th July, 1998 (43/1997/827/1033
26. Peerless Ltd v Gambling Regulatory Authority [2015] UKPC 29 at [21]
27. R (Bermingham) v Director of SFO [2007] QB727
28. Rahmatullah v Secretary of State for Foreign and commonwealth Affairs [2011] EWCA Civ 11155540 , [2012] 1 WLR 1462at [43]
29. R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2012] AC 245 ; [1998] AC 539
30. R (Guisto) v Governor of Brixton Prison [2004] 1 AC 101
31. R (on the application of Allison) v Secretary of State for the Home Department — [2001] EWHC Admin 506, [1998] AC 539
32. R (Rotterham Metropolitan Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 6 , [2015] PTSR 322at [61]
33. R (Saifi) v Governor of Brixton Prison [2001] 1 WLR 34
34. R v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police ex parte Calveley and Others [1986] Q.B.
35. R v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42
36. Reinprecht v Austria (App no 67175/01) — [2005] ECHR 67175/01
37. Secretary of State for Education and Science and Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1997] AC 1014
38. Sharma v Brown-Antoine and others [2006] UKPC 57 , [2007] 1 WLR 780
39. Solomon v Shuster MNI HCVAP2014/0004
40. St. Kitts Development Ltd v Golfview Department Ltd SKN HCVAP2003/024 at [18]
41. Sutej v The Governor of HMP Holloway and Another ; [2003] EWHC 1940 (Admin)
42. Svipsta v Latvia [2006] ECHR 66820/01
43. Texan Management Ltd. Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co. Ltd. [2009] UKPC 46 ;
44. The Extradition Act 1993 of Antigua and Barbuda
45. The State v Brad Boyce 65 WIR 65 .
46. Thomas v Gonsalves Civil Appeal . No. 9 of 2014 SVG HCVAP 2014/0009at [15]
47. Toussaint v Attorney general of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [2007] UKPC 48 , [2007] 1 WLR 2825
48. Umirov v Russia (App. No. 17455/11) —
49. United States v Ray L. Corona and Rafael Corona 804 F 2d. 1568
50. United States v. Broecker CR NO. 112–97-C (W.D. Ky., 2012)
51. U.S. v. Hickey , 580 F.3d 922 (9th Cir., 2009)
52. United States v. Miner No. 3:11-cr-25 (E.D. Tenn' 2012)
53. United States v. Goff , 187 Fed. App'x 486, 491 (6th Cir. 2006)
54. United States v. Stricklin 591 F.2d 1112
55. Warren v Attorney General for Jersey [2011] UKPC 10 .
56. Watson v Fernandes [2007] CCJ 1(AJ) at [39] –[40]
Constitutional Law — Originating Motion — Failed application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and failed appeal — Consequential Order of Extradition — Challenges to Extradition Order coupled with challenges to extradition process — Whether proceedings duplicitous to original Application for Habeas Corpus.
Constitutional Law — Allegations of breach of fundamental rights — Sections 3, 5, 14 and 15 of the Constitution — No right of Appeal from High Court's refusal to grant Writ of Habeas Corpus — Whether right of appeal to Court of Appeal to requesting states — Whether failure to provide right of appeal from refusal to grant Writ of Habeas Corpus breach of right of access — Whether breach of right to protection of the law — Whether any right of appeal to requesting state discriminatory
Judicial Review — application for leave to apply for judicial review — application made a part of originating motion — application not supported by grounds — whether application properly brought — Subsequent written application with grounds filed within same proceedings near date of hearing more than four years after decision — whether application should be barred on discretionary grounds.
Judicial Review — Whether arguable grounds that Minister making extradition order failed to have proper regard to statutory considerations — Whether arguable case that Minister should have reconsidered the quality of the evidence before the committing courts to satisfy himself that accusations grounding extradition request are justified and made in good faith — Whether arguable case that extradition request tainted by acts of bad faith — Whether arguable case that Minister failed to properly consider representations made by Claimant prior to the making of extradition order — Whether arguable case of an abuse of power and abuse of process
Judicial Review — Order of Extradition — Late application made after hearing for additional matters to be considered to show arguable case that Minister's decision bad in law — Whether application providing court with sufficient basis to find that additional matters not discoverable with reasonable due diligence — whether an abuse of the process of the court.
Judicial Review — Order of Extradition — Original US Indictment one of the main basis for Extradition Order — Superseding Indictments against co-defendants in the USA — No disclosure of superseding indictments — Whether superseding indictments nullifying the original indictment thereby nullifying original indictment and erasing accusations against claimant — whether superseding indictment relevant to the Minister's decision to make extradition order.
In 2010, the Government of the United States made a request to the Government of Antigua and Barbuda to extradite Mr. Leroy King, the claimant in these proceedings. The documents which were sent showed that the request was grounded in a twenty-one-count indictment returned in 2009 by a Grand Jury in the State of Texas. That indictment also charged the now infamous Allen Stanford as well as a number of other persons.
In 2011, the claimant was committed under the Extradition Act 1993. Following his committal he applied pursuant to section 13 of the Act for Habeas Corpus and also sought an order of certiorari to quash the committal. On the 6 th February 2012, the High Court upheld in part his challenge and nullified the committal insofar as it related to ten of the charges but affirmed the committal in relation to the other eleven charges. Immediately after this, by a letter of the 10 th February 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs (the second defendant) exercising powers under the Extradition Act, gave notice to the claimant that he should show reasons why an order of return should not be made against him pursuant to section 14 of the Act. On the 16 th February 2012, the claimant appealed the decision of the high court to the Court of Appeal. On the 21st March 2012, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis that it had no jurisdiction pursuant to section 31 to hear an appeal which arose from a 'criminal cause of matter'. On the 23 rd March 2012, the second defendant ordered the return of the claimant to the USA in relation to the charges for which he was committed. On the 30 th March 2012, the second defendant signed a warrant for the extradition of the claimant. This was served on him on the 1st...
To continue reading
Request your trial