According to a letter, dated May 5, 2010, Jeremie was the one who initiated the process of taking submissions from the parties involved in light of then threats by the men to subject his exercise of his powers to extradite, to judicial review.
“In the event that, after due consideration of all relevant matters, I do decide to issue the order I undertake that your clients will not be returned (to the United States) until a reasonable period of time has elapsed from the date of my decision,” Jeremie wrote in the letter dated May 5, 2010 to the men’s attorney Nyree Alfonso.
Newsday understands that this letter was a key element of the claim made by the men’s lawyers that their clients should not be extradited until after they had a chance, once more, to exercise their rights in the courts.
The letter makes clear that Jeremie was the one who initiated the process of getting submissions from the men as he exercised his powers under the Extradition Act 1985, after the courts had, at that time,. rejected a bid by the men to stay extradition.
“Under section 16(1) of the Extradition Act, the Attorney General is required to consider the return of a fugitive upon it occurring that neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal has ordered the discharge of the fugitive on the hearing of a habeas corpus application,” Jeremie noted in the two-page letter.
He continued, “On September 23, 2009, you will recall that Mr David West, acting on my behalf (and writing in response to your clients’ threat to seek judicial review of a decision which I had not made), issued a letter to attorneys then on record for your clients which indicated that I intended to make a decision under the 1985 Act.”
“In that letter, Mr West invited attorneys then on record for your clients to ‘make any further representations additional to the ones they had already made within fourteen days of his letter. To this day your clients have declined to respond,” Jeremie said in the May letter. “That invitation was extended some eight months ago.”
But despite the men’s apparent failure to take advantage of Jeremie’s offer to hear further representations, Jeremie once more asked the men to do so.
“I now invite you once again, to make any representations you might wish to make in this matter,” he said. “It should hardly be worth emphasising that I will treat with any such representations which you might make fairly and in obedience to my responsibilities.”
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, whose order of the men’s extradition was stayed by the Court of Appeal on Saturday, has argued that he had little choice, but to act as he did. The men have challenged Ramlogan’s decision on several grounds, and have argued that the Attorney General should have given them even more opportunities to submit representations.