JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Friday, February 28, 2025

The 'forum conveniens'

by

20100718

In an Ad­vice ap­par­ent­ly so­licit­ed by at­tor­neys for Steve Fer­gu­son and Ish­war Gal­barans­ingh, for­mer pres­i­dent El­lis Clarke, an em­i­nent at­tor­ney-at-law, pro­ferred the opin­ion that the case for T&T be­ing the "fo­rum con­ve­niens" to try the ac­cused men is lu­cid and "com­pelling." This is not the first time that it has been ar­gued in re­spect of an ex­tra­di­tion mat­ter that lo­cal tri­al for peo­ple ac­cused of sim­i­lar of­fences in both the US and T&T should be pre­ferred. The point was tak­en in ex­tra­di­tion pro­ceed­ings in re­la­tion to some of the men lo­cal­ly ac­cused of killing Bal­ram Ma­haraj, a US cit­i­zen, and in re­spect of whom the US had sought ex­tra­di­tion for of­fences in­volv­ing hostage tak­ing. The ac­cused were even­tu­al­ly ex­tra­dit­ed.

Fo­rum con­ve­niens

This term has been held by the House of Lords to mean "more con­ve­nient, that is to say, prefer­able, for se­cur­ing the ends of jus­tice." In the Cana­da ar­gu­ments on this ba­sis are re­ferred to as the "Cotroni" analy­sis fol­low­ing a 1989 case of Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca v Cotroni, where the US sought the ex­tra­di­tion of one Cotroni from Cana­da. Since T&T's law on ex­tra­di­tion is based on sim­i­lar leg­is­la­tion in Cana­da it is use­ful to con­sid­er how that has been in­ter­pret­ed. It is set­tled that a Cotroni analy­sis can be de­ter­mined at any time pri­or to sur­ren­der. The law is clear that it is for the ac­cused in an ex­tra­di­tion case to sat­is­fy the court that there is an­oth­er fo­rum that is more con­ve­nient.

Since the de­ci­sion whether or not to sur­ren­der a fugi­tive lies with the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al the per­son sought has a right to make sub­mis­sions to him with re­spect to any mat­ter rel­e­vant to his de­ci­sion to sur­ren­der the fugi­tive [to the State re­quest­ing the ex­tra­di­tion]. The AG is pre­clud­ed from sur­ren­der­ing the per­son if the sur­ren­der would be un­just or op­pres­sive hav­ing re­gard to all the rel­e­vant cir­cum­stances. As clar­i­fied in the 2006 case of US v Pru­den­za, be­fore sur­ren­der­ing a per­son for ex­tra­di­tion the rel­e­vant min­is­ter must con­duct a "Cotroni as­sess­ment" to de­ter­mine whether it would be un­just and op­pres­sive to ex­tra­dite him.

In that case, the ac­cused had ar­gued that the Min­is­ter had mis­ap­plied Cotroni in or­der­ing the sur­ren­der. The Court held that the Min­is­ter's view that the Amer­i­can pros­e­cu­tion would be "more ef­fec­tive and re­li­able" was an ap­pli­ca­tion of the prop­er test. Sir El­lis ar­gues that any AG ap­ply­ing "the law to the facts" in the Fer­gu­son-Gal­barans­ingh case must find that T&T is the prop­er fo­rum in which to try these men.

The facts

The men have been in­dict­ed for of­fences in the US in­volv­ing bid-rig­ging of the process in­volved in the grant­i­ng of con­tracts in re­spect of Con­struc­tion Pack­ages 9 and 13 in the Air­port Project. The air­port con­struc­tion had been bro­ken down in­to 18 con­struc­tion pack­ages. The ac­cused were al­so charged for con­spir­a­cy of­fences in the US in re­la­tion to these pack­ages. Pri­or to that they had been charged for bid-rig­ging and con­spir­a­cy to de­fraud in T&T which in­volved CP9 and CP13. On the face of it there­fore, there were two sets of pro­ceed­ings when the ex­tra­di­tion pro­ceed­ings ini­tial­ly start­ed.

On No­vem­ber 13, 2006, how­ev­er, then DPP Ge­of­frey Hen­der­son dis­con­tin­ued all crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings in T&T as they per­tained to CP13. Two months lat­er on Jan­u­ary 9, 2007 he dis­con­tin­ued all fur­ther pro­ceed­ings in re­spect of of­fences re­lat­ing to CP9 and CP13.

In an af­fi­davit filed in Court on Oc­to­ber 30, 2007, the then DPP made it clear that it was his in­ten­tion to dis­con­tin­ue all pro­ceed­ings in T&T con­cern­ing the same con­duct in the US in­dict­ment. His rea­sons were that the US had wit­ness­es and doc­u­ments in these mat­ters that were not avail­able to the T&T pros­e­cu­tion.

Dis­con­tin­u­ance

As it stands, there­fore, it ap­pears that there are cur­rent­ly no of­fences in T&T for the ac­cused Fer­gu­son and Gal­barans­ingh to an­swer that in­volve the same con­duct as the of­fences for which they are charged in the US. In oth­er words there were sim­i­lar T&T of­fences to those charged in the US but they are now at an end. In such cir­cum­stances it is dif­fi­cult to ap­ply the law on fo­rum con­ve­niens to the facts of this mat­ter a la Sir El­lis–since it sim­ply does not ap­ply. There is no ques­tion of the AG hav­ing to chose a fo­rum as the on­ly fo­rum now for the bid rig­ging of­fences and the con­spir­a­cy of­fences in re­spect of CP9 and CP13 is the US. Fo­rum con­ve­niens just does not arise.

Record of the Case

Sir El­lis in his Ad­vice re­ferred to in pass­ing "the whol­ly un­ac­cept­able record of the case" which con­sti­tut­ed the ev­i­dence sent by the Re­quest­ing state when seek­ing ex­tra­di­tion. He ap­pears to sug­gest that the law is un­con­sti­tu­tion­al. Since these are ar­gu­ments that are now en­gag­ing the High Court in a con­sti­tu­tion­al mo­tion brought by the ac­cused it is suf­fi­cient to state that sim­i­lar ar­gu­ments have al­ready en­gaged the courts of Cana­da in re­spect of the same law, which has been held to be con­sti­tu­tion­al. Hav­ing prac­tised in the field of ex­tra­di­tion I had hoped that Sir El­lis' opin­ion would con­tribute to the de­bate on fo­rum con­ve­niens. In this case, giv­en the facts as at­test­ed to by the for­mer DPP and which sure­ly are known to the ac­cused, there is no longer any ques­tion of which is the ap­pro­pri­ate fo­rum in re­spect of the ex­tra­di­tion of­fences. T&T is out of the pic­ture.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored