The Court of Appeal on Wednesday ordered the committal to prison of Melvin Maycock Sr. and 10 other men to await their extradition to the United States to face drug trafficking charges. Federal prosecutors requested the extradition of Maycock, Wilfred Ferguson, Carl Culmer, Lynden Deal, Bryan Deal, Torrey Lockhart, Shanto Curry, Sheldon Moore, Gordon Newbold, Trevor Roberts and Devroy Moss in October 2004.

The extradition hearing proceeded in fits and starts before a magistrate as the fugitives raised constitutional challenges to the legitimacy of the Extradition Act and the Listening Devices Act, the governing legislation for wiretaps that were taken to the Privy Council. A magistrate finally approved the extradition request and ordered the committal of the fugitives to await extradition on May 7, 2013.

A Supreme Court judge refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus and affirmed the orders for extradition on September 11, 2014. Maycock, who was serving time for a local drug trafficking case, remained on remand after he concluded his sentence. Yesterday's ruling signaled the revocation of bail for the remaining fugitives, who were taken into custody and loaded into two vans for transport to the Bahamas Department of Correctional Services.

The Deal brothers, who were not present for the court's decision, will be taken to the prison whenever they are taken into custody. Explaining their absence, lawyer Roger Gomez Jr. said he had been unable to contact his clients by cell phone to notify them of the court date. Gomez said the Deals were fishermen and their mother informed him that they were out to sea. Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Franklyn Williams noted that the Deals were required to report weekly to the police as a condition of their bail.

Williams said it was incredulous that the Deals "would find themselves at sea given the urgent nature of their appeal". In the ruling decided by Court President Anita Allen and Justices of Appeal Abdulai Conteh and Neville Adderley, the court refused to send the matter back to the magistrates' court for a determination on whether police had operated within the limits of the wiretap authorizations. The bulk of the evidence in support of the extradition request came from wiretaps and the testimony of cooperating witnesses.

The Court of Appeal said the appellants had failed to point the court "to any circumstances which would require further investigation and findings on whether the limits of the authorizations had been observed". The appellate court said it was incumbent on the appellants to seek a further investigation of any allegations that amounted to a breach of the limits of the authorizations.

The judgment continued, "This was not done. In the absence of their demonstrating that such circumstances exist, there is no utility in remitting these matters as the appellants ask. In any event, even if there was evidence of the non-observance of the limits of the authorizations, that does not make the evidence obtained pursuant to such authorizations inadmissible, as the (Privy Council) Board observed in paragraph 16 of its judgment.

"Indeed, the object of committal proceedings is only to determine whether the evidence in support of the request for extradition discloses a prima facie case against the person whose extradition is requested. It is still open to the appellant, if surrendered for trial, to raise with the trial judge any objections he may have to the admissibility of any evidence sought to be laid against him by the U.S. It would be a matter for the discretion of that judge whether to accept or reject it."

The Court of Appeal said it was "satisfied that the learned judge correctly concluded that there was ample evidence before the magistrate sufficient to warrant the appellants' extradition for the offenses charged." Noting the length of time that requests had taken "to wend their way to this stage", the Court of Appeal said that it hoped that the "remaining stages of these proceedings are completed with more urgency and expedition; so that justice, both for the requesting state and the persons whose extraditions are sought, is not only done but is manifestly seen to be done."

The men intend to appeal the decision to the Privy Council.

The police officeer escorts convicted drug trafficker Melvin Maycock Sr. (lefr) into the Court of Appeal yesterday. Photo: Ahvia J. Campbell

 

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian