Andrew Bennett Fights Extradition on Rights Grounds

The long-running extradition battle involving attorney Andrew Bennett returned to the Caribbean Court of Justice this morning, as Belize’s highest court revisited whether he can legally be sent to the United States to face criminal charges. In today’s hearing, CCJ judges dug into a key question at the heart of the dispute: Can the U.S. rely on evidence that Bennett claims was improperly obtained? His legal team argues that parts of the extradition bundle violate his constitutional rights and should never have formed the basis of an extradition request in the first place. Bennett is asking the court to halt the proceedings permanently, insisting that allowing his surrender under these circumstances would amount to an unlawful breach of his rights. He is represented by King’s Counsel Edward Fitzgerald and attorney Hector Guerra. The hearing stretched more than two and a half hours, with the bench pressing both sides on how the law should treat evidence in cross-border cases. We have a brief excerpt from this morning’s arguments.

 

Edward Fitzgerald, KC, Attorney-at-law

“There is no dispute of the respondent’s submission that they accept that was unconstitutional. And that is at page fourteen eighty. Moreover, we say that the receipt and extraction of the appellant’s WhatsApp messages from the phone form the US agent was prohibited by the Interception of Communications Act. You have that in the appellants submissions at section three, and it is dealt with in the judgment of Justice James, that it was a breach.”

 

 

 

Justice Wiston Anderson, President, Caribbean Court of Justice

“I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I assume that at some point you will discuss the implications of the fact that at the time that act was not enforced.”

 

 

 

 

Edward Fitzgerald

“That was precisely the point I am coming to. It is true that at that time it was not brought into force. But this does not diminish the fact that, based on the legislature’s decision, such conduct should be deemed criminal. It is a product to the fact that the act in section four provided that the act should come into force, and the executive did not appoint a commencement date.”

 

Samantha Matute represented the respondent in this hearing. The CCJ will consider its decision before handing down its ruling.

 

Attention readers: This online newscast is a direct transcript of our evening television broadcast. When speakers use Kriol, we have carefully rendered their words using a standard spelling system.

 

Watch The Full Newscast Here: