Skip to main content

Tivoli COE: Insufficiency of "other "evidence--Lightbourne

The issue of the sufficiency, or otherwise, of the supporting evidence  accompanying the formal extradition request for Christopher "Dudus" Coke resurfaced during the cross-examination of Miss Dorothy Lightbourne at the Tivoli Commission of Enquiry. The focus was on the "other evidence"--ie that excluding the contested wire tape evidence.

 Dorothy Lightbourne, the former Attorney- General and Minister of Justice, has been consistent in maintaining that the evidence other than that pertaining to the wire taps was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. Nevertheless she signed the authority to proceed without a sufficient evidentiary basis.

In the Manatt Enquiry, the following exchanges took place on Friday, March 11, 2011 between Mr. K.D. Knight and Miss Lightbourne:

Q:   ..... Miss Lightbourne you had some reservations about the wire tap evidence that had been supplied by the US government, is that correct?
A:  That is correct.
Q:   If you exclude the wire tap evidence would there have been sufficient evidence to justify your issuing an authority to proceed?
A:   No, sir.
Q:   If you excluded the wire tap evidence would there have been sufficient evidence on which a  committal could have been made by the Magistrate?
A:   In my view, no.
Q:   So, do I understand the situation to have been that you signed an authority to proceed without any   evidentiary basis at all?
A:   I said there was some evidence, I did not consider it sufficient.
Q:   So do you agree that you signed the authority to proceed without a sufficient evidentiary basis?
A:   That is my view.

Lightbourne elaborated her interpretation of the duty that had to be carried out under Section 8, Extradition Act: 
  • "Mr Chairman, my duty would be to see that there is sufficient evidence that could be put, that a committed Magistrate would commit the accused to stand trial for the offense."
  • "A:   My consideration are to look at the legal issues, to look at the evidence, and to look at the whole circumstances of what is before me to say that this is sufficient that this person should be committed to stand trial."
  •  Q:   And if the evidence is insufficient what is your ministerial duty?
  •  A:   To refuse the request."
The cross-examination on this subject matter continued for some time. Knight grilled; Lightbourne remained steadfast--repeating the gist of her position. The matter was well ventilated during the Manatt COE.
The Tivoli COE wasted some very expensive time.



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Appealing the By-Election Order

Abraham Dabdoub's appeal against the Chief Justice's ruling can be divided into two overlapping and intertwined phases: That the Chief Justice erred in law by failing to award the seat to the only duly nominated candidate on Nomination Day, August 7, 2007 in the constituency of West Portland; and That the Chief Justice erred in law by failing to recognize and properly apply the distinction between " status " and " conduct " in coming to her decision on disqualification based on dual citizenship. Numerous cases on votes being declared to be "thrown away" and the next candidate being duly seated by the court are cited. The detailed submissions are set out below: Publish at Scribd or explore others: Law
Post a Comment
Read more

By-Election Predisposition

Introduction A massive amount of time and resources have been devoted to the issue of the course to be properly taken once a victorious electoral candidate has been found to be "disqualified" under S. 40 of the Constitution of Jamaica. Simply put, the crux of the matter is whether the second place candidate should, without more, be accorded the seat by the court; or that the said election be deemed null and void and a by-election ordered to decide the people's representative. This matter consumed inordinate amounts of energy - judicial and otherwise - due primarily to the silence of the Constitution on what recourse should be adopted in such circumstance. A cardinal tenet of democratic government is that the people must decide their representatives and not a select grouping - no matter their qualification or status. The Constitution of Jamaica fully recognized this imperative even though it expressly delegates the determination of questions as to membership of either Ho...
4 comments
Read more

Voiding the Budget

(Unedited Version) The Budget Debate is a critical exercise in outlining the measures by which the Government intends to raise revenue to fund its programmes and the business of the bureaucracy. The bill is ultimately passed by the legislators thereby giving effect to the adage: “No taxation without representation.” The principle is the rationale why many bills must originate in the Lower House (Parliament) where the people’s representatives have the sole authority to bring matters of taxation. The Chief Justice of Jamaica has interpreted the Section of the Constitution of Jamaica dealing with those qualified to be elected or appointed to the House of Representatives. The ruling has the effect of deeming those Members of Parliament and Senators holding US passports ineligible to sit in the Parliament of Senate. This has profound implications for the passage of the Budget as there are numerous Members on both sides of the aisle who are in this offending position. Profound Questions Can...
2 comments
Read more