Magistrates Retain Jurisdiction in Extradition Cases, Rules Justice Rahim
Justice Ricky Rahim has declared that magistrates still have jurisdiction in extradition cases, despite the recent abolishment of preliminary inquiries through the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act (AJIPA). This ruling was made on July 23, emphasizing that the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act grants magistrates the jurisdiction and powers to oversee a special criminal process independent of their authority to conduct committal proceedings.
According to Justice Rahim, the Extradition Act establishes a distinct and separate extradition process governed by criminal standards and evidential procedures. This process involves critical elements such as warrants, evaluation of evidence related to criminal offenses, and decisions on issues like bail and remand to prison. While an appeal from a magistrate’s decision is considered civil in nature, the core extradition process is distinctly criminal.
The interpretation claim that led to this ruling was filed by the Attorney General back in June. This claim sought clarification on whether the AJIPA affected a magistrate’s jurisdiction in extradition cases. The AG argued that extradition matters are sui generis and therefore fall outside the AJIPA’s scope, preserving magistrates’ authority. The urgency of resolving this issue was heightened by an ongoing extradition case involving a Trinidadian man wanted in the US for attempted murder.
As the legal battle continued, Acting Chief Magistrate Christine Charles found herself in the spotlight during Vincent Roberts’s extradition proceedings. Questions surrounding her jurisdiction and powers under the Extradition Act were raised, alleging that the AJIPA had stripped away certain authorities. However, Justice Rahim’s ruling clarified that while the nature of extradition proceedings may differ from traditional criminal hearings, magistrates continue to have jurisdiction over these specialized cases.
The AG was represented by a team of legal experts including Ravi Rajcoomar, SC, Raphael Ajodhia, Netran Kowlessar, and Raydon Dalrymple Watts, while attorney Kiev Chesney appeared for Roberts and Christophe Rodriguez represented Acting Chief Magistrate Charles. This landmark ruling sheds light on the intricacies of extradition cases and the evolving landscape of judicial processes.
