Belize

The Court of Appeal of Belize dismissed an appeal against the refusal of habeas corpus brought by a requested person detained pending extradition to the United States to face intoxication manslaughter and intoxication assault charges. The Court held that the absence of a transcript of the habeas corpus hearing did not render the appellate proceedings unfair, since no oral evidence had been received and the documentary record was sufficient for meaningful appellate review. It confirmed that, in habeas corpus proceedings arising from extradition, the reviewing court must independently satisfy itself that the statutory and treaty safeguards governing committal and detention have been complied with, while not rehearing the underlying extradition case. Applying that standard, the Court found sufficient evidence to justify committal, substantial compliance with the requirement to inform the requested person of his right to seek habeas corpus, and no prejudicial irregularity arising from the delay in providing the committal warrant. The Court therefore affirmed the refusal of habeas corpus and held that the requested person’s detention pending extradition remained lawful.

The case concerned extradition proceedings initiated by the United States against a Belizean attorney accused of participating in money laundering activities connected to drug trafficking. The extradition request relied in part on WhatsApp communications exchanged with an undercover DEA agent, which the lower courts had previously considered unlawfully obtained under Belize’s Interception of Communications Act and therefore unconstitutional. Before the Caribbean Court of Justice, it emerged that the statute relied upon by the lower courts had not yet entered into force at the relevant time, rendering the prior findings per incuriam. The Court held that the constitutional issues concerning the use of WhatsApp communications without judicial authorisation had not been properly argued and should not be resolved hypothetically on appeal. The decisions of the lower courts were therefore set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for reconsideration of the constitutional questions.

The United States sought the extradition of the requested person from Belize to stand trial in Florida on a murder charge. After remaining in custody for nearly twenty months while the extradition proceedings were affected by repeated procedural difficulties, the requested person applied for bail, which the respondent did not oppose. The Supreme Court held that bail is available in extradition proceedings, although the discretion must be exercised with particular caution because of the requested State’s treaty obligations and the risk that the person may evade surrender. Taking account of the prolonged detention, the lack of progress in the proceedings and the constitutional protection of personal liberty, the court granted bail subject to a substantial bond, two sureties, reporting requirements, surrender of travel documents, a fixed residence and notification of the order to all border posts.