US’ attorney justifies right to be part of proceedings

Queen’s Counsel James Lewis, who is leading the case for the US, will know if his pitch for a chance to be heard was successful when the three judges give their decision in the near future. Also presiding over the US’ appeal were Justices Allan Mendonca and Peter Jamadhar.

Lewis spent most of the three hours of hearing yesterday, insisting that as Warner’s prosecutor in the extradition proceedings against him, he should be heard by the judge hearing the judicial review claim against the Attorney General’s decision to sign an extradition request from the US, which Warner’s lawyers said was illegal.

In June, Justice James Aboud ruled that the US government will take no part in the judicial review proceedings While Aboud ruled that the US had an interest in the outcome of the case before him, he said that its interest would be adequately dealt with by the Office of the Attorney General.

“Its position as an affected party is not compromised by its exclusion because its interest and the AG’s appear to be identical,” Aboud said. He also ruled that the US would not “bring anything to the table” in the case as it admitted that it only wished to make legal submissions in the case.

According to Warner’s lawyers, the issue was one regarding TT law, and therefore should not be attended to by a foreign country.

At yesterday’s appeal hearing, Lewis was kept busy by the judges who questioned him at length on the US’ rights to be a party to the judicial review hearing.

“We have an absolute right,” Lewis said, and also appeared to have found himself in a bit of a sticky situation when it appeared he conceded that the US government did not trust this country’s Attorney General to advance its case before the judge.

Archie: You don’t trust the Attorney General? Lewis: Well that’s one way of putting it. He went on to explain that the US could not abrogate its own position on the extradition challenge onto another party.

“That’s why we’re here. It may be that his interests are informed by different factors, such as politics, we are entitled to make sure our interests are put forth,” Lewis said.

Later, he further sought to clarify what he said after Warner’s lead counsel Fyard Hosein,SC, noted it was a powerful statement for the US to say it did not trust a sovereign state.

“We have different interests than that of the Attorney General,” Lewis said. He submitted that the US had sufficient interest in the proceedings to be heard and must be allowed to do so by the court.

Lewis further contended that the AG, if allowed to advance the position of the US, would be in conflict as his ATP was being challenged by Warner.