On last week Wednesday's newscast, we told you about the latest developments in the extradition proceedings against attorney Andrew Bennett.
For the past few months now, he's been resisting an extradition request from the US Government. Law enforcement authorities from that country want him to stand trial in the District of Puerto Rico for 7 counts of money laundering. They claim to have evidence that he met with an undercover US agent, and allegedly negotiated a deal to launder money for a fictitious drug cartel. They further claim that he took payment from them in a backpack which reportedly contained a quarter million dollars in cash.
The extradition proceedings were creeping along slowly. In the last few adjournments of this matter, his legal team were attempting to convince Chief Magistrate Sharon Frazer to throw it out on a technicality - a single missing document.
Well, after a back and forth between the defense, which was represented byAnthony Sylvestre, and the prosecution, which is being represented by DPP Cheryl Lynn Vidal and Assistant Solicitor General Samantha Matute-Tucker, Chief Magistrate Frazer decided that she would admit that missing document into evidence.
The extradition proceedings would have began in earnest today, where the court would have started looking into the evidence that the US Government says that it has against Bennett. But, that didn't happen because his other attorney, Iliana Swift, showed up to court to make an application to the Chief Magistrate for what is known in law as a "case stated." Legal experts tell us that this procedure allows citizens to go to the Supreme Court to protect any of their constitutional rights, which they feel is being violated.
In this instance, Bennett's legal team is seeking to block the admission of this document into evidence. But, in addition to that, the Bennett's lawyers say that the US law enforcement illegally intercepted his communication, and they are trying to use the contents of that communication against him in these extradition proceedings. They believe that the US Government ought to have come to the Belize Supreme Court and apply for an order under the Interception of Communications Act to confiscate these correspondences.
They want the Supreme Court to determine whether or not that amounts to an abuse of the court's process, and today, DPP Vidal told the Chief Magistrate that the government's side will not oppose the application. Instead, they will fight it in the Supreme Court during the proceedings for the "case stated."
It's a technical bit of law, and so for a little more clarity, the press spoke with attorney Richard "Dickie" Bradley, who was listening in on today's hearing. Here's how he tried to simplify it for easy understanding:
Richard 'Dickie' Bradley, Attorney-at-law
"The Constitution of Belize says that any person whose rights, all the fundamental rights and freedom, your rights and freedom, your right to protect your correspondence, your privacy, your freedom and so on, any of the fundamental rights, if they are being affected, whether they have been affected, whether they are being violated or breached or whether they are likely to be violated or breached, a person in that situation has a right to go to the Supreme Court to say to the court, my right or my rights are being violated and therefore I want a remedy. That is what the Chief Magistrate will send up to the Supreme Court that Andrew Bennett's lawyers are saying his constitutional rights are being violated based on information that is sought to be used in the request extradite him to the United States of America."
"From what the lawyers have said to the Chief Magistrate, one of that violation has to do with Mr. Bennett's correspondence, his communications. Apparently there are lots of information on WhatsApp between Mr. Bennett and an agent of the United States of America, either drug enforcement or money laundering or whatever, but that you can only use information from a person's telephone or text or any form of communication in accordance with the law of Belize, which is contained in the Interceptions of Communications Act. Can't just bruk eena wahn man phone and seh aha, look ya, or whatever it is. There is a procedure to get into phones. You can only go into a person's telephone by getting an order from the Supreme Court in which an application has to be made and reasons have to be given and the court will make and order to B.T.L. or to Smart to allow the police or the authorities to look into a person's phone records. In this case they are saying, the American agents want to use communication information against Mr. Bennett and that they may have obtained that information in violation of the law and that the law only allows a certain procedure but that that law is also a part of the constitutional right to privacy and to the protection of your correspondents. So that is a violation of one's constitutional rights that citizens, including Mr. Bennett, has."
So, the extradition proceedings are on hold until further notice, and the matters raised by Bennett's legal team will go before a judge of the Supreme Court. Whenever that hearing takes place, we'll be there to tell you how it goes.
Email
Print