'Lightbourne had no concerns about earlier extradition cases'
Published:Wednesday | February 2, 2011 | 12:00 AM
Gary Spaulding, Senior Gleaner Writer
A senior prosecutor is claiming that Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne, prior to her 10-month refusal to sign an extradition request for accused drug kingpin Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, had signed at least one extradition request equipped with wiretap evidence similar to that which would concern her office in the later case.
Between August 2009 - when the United States Embassy in Kingston dispatched the extradition request for Coke to the Jamaican authorities - and May 2010, Lightbourne had refused to sign the extradition request, claiming it breached the Interception of Communications Act.
Under cross-examination from K.D. Knight, the attorney representing the People's National Party, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Jeremy Taylor revealed that Lightbourne had signed the approval to proceed in a previous matter relating to the Interception of Communications Act.
Taylor, who heads the Extradition Unit in the DPP's office, said he was, however, not in a position to make more definitive statements on the issue as he did not have the file with him.
Throughout his cross-examination, Knight probed whether Lightbourne had been searching for a reason to turn down the extradition request for Coke.
"Prior to the Coke case, are you aware of any concerns raised by the honourable attorney general in the Mutual Assistance Criminal Matters Act?" asked Knight, to which Taylor responded, "No."
Taylor maintained throughout his testimony that evidence garnered through wiretapping was admissible in court.
When asked by Knight, Taylor cited the cases of Donald 'Zekes' Phipps, among others, in which wiretap evidence was relevant.
No barrier for courts
But this did not go down well with the attorney for the Jamaica Labour Party, Frank Phipps.
"Are you aware that the Government was claiming breach of the Interception of Communications Act and said it wanted more information (on the extradition request)?" queried Phipps.
Taylor maintained that this did not bar the courts from proceeding with the extradition request.
Hugh Small, the attorney representing Prime Minister Bruce Golding, also weighed in on the wiretap issue.
"Do you believe that the interception of communications, in terms of eavesdropping, is relevant and should be admissible?" he asked.
"It would be relevant, even if it (the law) is not strictly followed. Judges could exercise their judgement," Taylor answered.
Small was not done. "Given the fact that you are the representative of the Government of Jamaica in respect of extradition matters, do you consider the Interception of the Communications Act ought to be taken into account in relation to wiretapping?"
Taylor insisted that while it might be relevant, it was not a barrier to admissibility of evidence in the extradition process.
Asked by Phipps whether he was aware of any other similar matters being held up subsequent to the Coke extradition, Taylor said he was not.
There are signs that the schedule announced only Monday has again been thrown out of kilter.
Small said Golding was not likely to be available on Monday and attorney Patrick Bailey disclosed that his client, the former minister of state in the foreign affairs ministry, Ronald Robinson, would not be able to appear before Friday, as he is off the island.