Jamaica

The petitioner, a Jamaican national subject to U.S. removal proceedings, was re-detained after immigration authorities learned through an Interpol Red Notice that he was wanted for murder in Jamaica, although the record did not establish that Jamaica had submitted a formal extradition request. After more than eleven months in custody, the District Court upheld his warrantless immigration arrest but held that continued detention required an individualized bond hearing at which the Government, rather than the petitioner, must prove dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted authority cautioning that Interpol Red Notices are not independently vetted for factual and legal justification and referred to ICE guidance stating that a Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant and should not be relied upon exclusively in immigration enforcement. The Court therefore granted the habeas petition in part and ordered a burden-shifted bond hearing, rather than the petitioner’s immediate release.

The requested person was extradited from Jamaica to the United States pursuant to a request concerning murder, attempted murder and drug-related offences, but was initially tried and convicted in a different case for an offence not covered by the surrender order. In subsequent civil proceedings, he sought additional constitutional, vindicatory and compensatory damages from the Jamaican authorities, arguing that his extradition had been unlawful and that the principle of speciality had been breached. The Court of Appeal held that the extradition order and the detention preceding surrender were lawful, that no appeal to the Privy Council was pending at the time of surrender and that the Jamaican Government was not responsible for the United States’ subsequent conduct. Although the court expressly found that Article 7 of the applicable extradition treaty had been breached, it held that the breach had been committed by the requesting State and did not entail liability of the requested State; the appeal concerning damages was therefore dismissed.

The appellant challenged his detention pending extradition to the United States, seeking both constitutional relief and a writ of habeas corpus. The Court of Appeal confirmed that no appeal lay against the Full Court’s refusal to grant habeas corpus, but found that the separate constitutional challenge had remained a live issue and had not been expressly abandoned. Since the judges below had mistakenly treated that claim as abandoned, they had made no judicial determination of the alleged infringement of the appellant’s constitutional rights. The matter was therefore remitted to the Full Court for determination of the constitutional application.