VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKG #0749/01 3371232
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O R 031232Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY KINGSTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0339
INFO EC CARICOM COLLECTIVE
RHMFISS/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0103
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA

C O N F I D E N T I A L KINGSTON 000749 
 
SIPDIS 
STATE FOR WHA/CAR (J.MACK-WILSON, V.DEPIRRO, W.SMITH) 
L/LEI (C.HOLLAND, A.KLUESNER) 
INR/IAA (G.BOHIGIAN) 
JUSTICE FOR OIA (P.PETTY) 
TREASUTY FOR ERIN NEPHEW 
INR/RES (R.WARNER) 
AMEMBASSY BRIDGETOWN PASS TO AMEMBASSY GRENADA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/12/03 
TAGS: PREL PGOV CVIS SNAR PINR ASEC SOCI CJAN KCOR KCRM JM
XL 
SUBJECT: EXTRADITION JAMAICA: CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL COKE 
 
REF: STATE 122699 (302220Z NOV 09)(NOTAL) 
KINGSTON 962 (171909Z NOV 09)(NOTAL) 
KINGSTON 924 (041544Z NOV 09)(NOTAL) 
KINGSTON 731 (021835Z NOV 09)(NOTAL) 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: LWMoss, P/E Counselor, State, Kingston; REASON: 
1.4(B), (D) 
 
Summary, Analysis, and Recommendation 
 
 
 
1.(C) The Government of Jamaica (GoJ) requests "technical legal 
discussions" with the USG regarding  the Mutual Legal Assistance 
Treaty (MLAT) in reference to the U.S. request for the extradition 
of  Christopher Michael Coke to face narcotics and firearms 
smuggling charges in New York, and in reference  to future 
extradition requests.  In Post's estimate, this is a delaying 
tactic: Coke's power in Tivoli Gardens  and elsewhere in the 
country, and influence over Prime Minister Bruce Golding's ruling 
Jamaica Labour  Party (JLP), are deeply entrenched.  The GoJ 
understandably fears bloodshed and civil unrest if he were 
arrested.  Post recommends that DOS and DOJ comply with the GoJ's 
request to hold direct discussions  regarding the applicability 
provisions of the bilateral MLAT in the Coke extradition request. 
The GoJ's  Solicitor General has indicated to Charge' that he is 
willing to travel to Washington for consultations.  End Summary, 
Analysis, and Recommendation. 
 
 
 
2.(C) Per reftel (A), Charge' delivered the USG response to the 
Government of Jamaica (GoJ)'s Minister  of Justice Dorothy 
Lightbourne's October 30 letter (reftel D) during a private meeting 
with her, Minister of  Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Dr. 
Kenneth Baugh, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade 
(MFAFT) Permanent Secretary Amb. Evadne Coye, and Solicitor General 
Douglas Leys, held at MFAFT  the morning of December 1. Charge' 
reiterated that the USG had been completely above board in pursuing 
the Coke extradition request: the former U.S. Ambassador had 
advised the Prime Minister in 2007 that the  case was under 
investigation and that an extradition request could be forthcoming, 
and USG law  enforcement officials had coordinated closely and 
extensively with officials of the Jamaica Constabulary  Force (JCF) 
and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) prior to the request. 
While the U.S. had many  good programs and initiatives ongoing in 
Jamaica, the Coke extradition request was by far the most 
important bilateral law enforcement issue and is receiving 
widespread attention among USG agencies. The  request had been 
handled in accordance with the Extradition Treaty; all required 
information had been provided. The USG recognized that the Treaty 
allowed the GoJ to request additional  information, and we had been 
as forthcoming as practicable; however, the questions raised to 
date by the  GoJ should more properly be considered following Mr. 
Coke's arrest, in the course of an extradition  hearing in which 
his attorneys could contest the content of the request. The USG 
recognized that this  particular extradition request would not be 
easy to implement, but that the USG expected compliance,  as had 
been the practice in prior extradition requests.  However, as a 
good partner, the USG offered to assist  in any way. Charge' noted 
that he had arrived in Jamaica on August 18, and the extradition 
had been requested  on August 20; the USG was disappointed with the 
lack of progress to date. 
 
 
 
3.(C) Minister Baugh expressed concern that the GoJ must follow due 
legal process in handling  extradition requests. Noting that he was 
not a legal technician, Baugh then asked Solicitor General Leys to 
explain the GoJ's position. Leys began by noting that this was not 
the best forum for technical legal  questions, as USG attorneys 
were not present, and the GoJ "fears that the matter requires 
technical  discussions," as there were "legal issues to be 
resolved." After examining USG response, Leys said that "we  had 
expected a more definitive answer." He then asserted that "this 
extradition request is outside the  norm," and questioned whether 
it represented a "developing trend" in which Jamaican constables 
would  give evidence in U.S. courts. He said the Coke extradition 
request raised questions as to how similar  requests would be 
treated in the future. Answers were needed so that he could "inform 
 
the Attorney  General Lightbourne as she exercises her 
responsibilities." 
 
 
 
4.(SBU) Charge' then asked whether the GoJ considered the 
information provided by the USG in the  request insufficient to 
meet the requirements of the Extradition Treaty. Leys replied that 
this was not the  case; however, the Extradition Treaty was only 
one aspect of "normal routine." The steps under the MLAT  must be 
"better informed," particularly with respect to wiretap evidence. 
Had the wiretap evidence been  properly obtained? This 
"extraordinary subject requires further dialogue."  If there had 
been a possible  breach of MLAT treaty obligations, then the 
extradition request "can't go much further;" if, on the other hand, 
the USG could confirm that there had been no breach, then "the GoJ 
can proceed." Charge' noted that,  until this meeting, there had 
been no suggestion of a breach of treaty. Leys responded that he 
was not saying  there had been a breach of the Extradition Treaty; 
he was only saying that the GoJ needed further assistance  and an 
explanation from the USG - otherwise, "we must conclude a breach." 
 
 
 
 
5.(C) Charge' then noted that the USG had worked hand-in-hand with 
the GoJ on this extradition  request, which was not outside 
commonly accepted practice. He asked that any questions be 
addressed following  Coke's arrest during an extradition hearing. 
Leys then said there were two issues: the narrow one of "the 
courts," and the larger one of the steps required under the MLAT. 
The "larger issue" was whether a trend  was developing of Jamaicans 
giving evidence in the U.S. without having followed MLAT 
procedures. For  the USG to say that this question "should be put 
before a court of law" missed the larger point: this was a 
"threshold decision" for the Attorney General ; therefore, the GoJ 
was asking for technical discussions with  the USG regarding the 
MLAT. Baugh then noted that this was a "technical matter." Leys 
questioned  under what authority Jamaican officers had given 
evidence in the U.S. Charge' noted that the evidence had  been 
given by employees of the GoJ as outlined in the extradition 
package, and that his office could make internal  inquiries 
regarding the steps taken during this investigation.  Baugh saw a 
need for "clarification of the process."  Leys then noted that this 
was a process which the USG and UK had used to "inform other 
extradition requests," and asked  why the MLAT was not being used 
to obtain evidence.  Leys claimed this left him in a "no-man's 
land; I  don't know whether the U.S. is in breach of the MLAT. We 
need a better understanding of the mechanism  of the MLAT." He then 
asserted that "this will determine future relations, how to go 
forward with future  extradition requests." 
 
6.(C) Lightbourne then noted that the GoJ's question as to whether 
"the information was obtained by  the United States in accordance 
with the treaty between Jamaica and the United States on Mutual 
Legal  Assistance in criminal matters and in accordance with the 
provisions of the Mutual Assistance (Criminal  Matters Act" (reftel 
D) had not been answered. The USG response was "too qualified," and 
"raised other  questions." Leys also maintained that the USG 
response did not address the question of the MLAT.  Charge' 
reiterated that, if Mr. Coke were to contest the extradition, this 
question should be considered  during the extradition hearing, and 
also pointed out that the extradition request did not hinge on only 
one  officer's testimony. In response, Leys maintained that 
"without the wiretap evidence, under Jamaican law  the case goes 
nowhere," and that "if this extradition request did not include the 
wiretap evidence, I would  advise the Attorney General against 
proceeding." He described the wiretap evidence as "integral," and 
said  that "we need technical discussions to see why established 
procedures were not followed." Leys said the  wiretap evidence 
represented vital "independent corroboration," and questioned "how 
it was obtained from  Jamaica." 
 
 
 
7.(C) Baugh then noted that, when he recently had spoken with 
former Assistant Secretary Shannon  concerning the Coke extradition 
 
request, he had asked that the USG provide complete answers to the 
GoJ's  questions. Charge' replied that the response delivered to 
the GoJ represented the USG's "definitive  answer" on the questions 
raised by the Justice Ministry.  Leys again asserted that the 
question concerning  the MLAT had not been addressed, and 
maintained "we can deal with the other questions." In response to 
ChargC)'s inquiry as to whether the GoJ questioned whether Jamaican 
authorities had had permission to present  evidence in the U.S., 
Leys replied that the question was "how the wiretap evidence had 
gotten into U.S. courts  without following MLAT procedures." Baugh 
then asked whether "technical meetings" could be arranged to 
address this "final hurdle."  Charge' then asked if the GoJ would 
no longer insist on the names of confidential  informants.  Leys 
responded that the GoJ now understood that the USG would not 
identify the confidential  informants in the case, but added that 
he did not mean to imply this no longer represented a problem for 
the GoJ. 
 
 
 
 8.(C) Coye observed that the MLAT recognized the sovereignty of 
both signatories, and asserted that,  when the Jamaican officer had 
gone to the U.S. to present evidence without following MLAT 
procedures,  Jamaica's sovereignty had been breached. Charge' 
observed that "we are setting a bridge too far," and it  seemed 
that the GoJ's new standards were based on the subject involved, 
rather than on points of law or our previous  practice in 
extradition matters.  Leys replied that this was the first time the 
MLAT issue "has come to the fore."  Charge' acknowledged that the 
question was not insignificant, but would be better handled during 
an extradition hearing.  Coye said that "what we're dealing with 
goes beyond the Coke case; it's the principle of respecting the 
MLAT." Charge'  responded that, if Jamaican officers had gone to 
the U.S. to present evidence on their own without any coordination 
with  the GoJ, he could understand this argument; however, this had 
not been so, given the cooperation that had existed in  putting the 
case together.  Coye noted that the MLAT Central Authorities had 
not been consulted; this was the key point,  and "we must stop the 
erosion of principle - this is a government-to-government issue," 
adding that "small nations take  sovereignty seriously." Charge' 
responded that the USG was not suggesting that the GoJ should do 
anything only  because we asked it, but because compliance was in 
accordance with the Treaty and previous unchallenged extradition 
requests.  Leys then said that, under the terms of the MLAT and 
Jamaican law, the request for wiretap evidence should have gone to 
the Minister of Justice (who had delegated authority to the 
Director of Public Prosecutions); because wiretaps were involved, 
the request then should have gone before a Jamaican judge, for 
approval in accordance with MLAT procedures. Charge' then  asked if 
the GoJ's consideration of the extradition request had left it 
uncertain as to whether competent Jamaican  authorities had 
authorized the introduction of evidence in the U.S., and, if so, 
whether the GoJ's request for  "technical legal discussions" 
regarding the MLAT were intended to "provide information which your 
investigation has not answered," to which Leys replied "yes." 
 
 
 
 9.(C) Charge' then observed that the GoJ appeared to be setting a 
standard too high and difficult to  Reach, and that applied only to 
the Coke extradition. Baugh responded that the MLAT was "well 
established."  Leys summed up by saying the GoJ had not yet taken a 
position with respect to the extradition request, but instead was 
requesting further assistance from the USG in the form of technical 
legal discussions.  Coye noted that the USG had offered  its 
assistance with the extradition process; the request for technical 
legal discussions was a request for assistance.  Charge' noted that 
the question as to whether evidence similarly had been introduced 
in previous extradition cases would have  to be considered. 
Lightbourne replied that, even if this had been so, she was not now 
at liberty to "ignore the law;"  the key question was whether the 
steps required under the MLAT had been followed.  Charge' said the 
Embassy would convey  the GoJ's views to Washington.   (Comment: 
Embassy Kingston recommends that the DOJ lawyers deal directly with 
Solicitor General Leys and Attorney General Lightbourne regarding 
their MLAT concerns.  Leys has indicated to Charge' that he is 
willing to travel to Washington for consultations.  Alternatively, 
 
Post can use its good offices to arrange a suitable date / time for 
a telephone conversation.  Post remains convinced that the GoJ's 
current misgivings about possible violation of MLAT provisions are 
an effort to prolong the decision-making process indefinitely or to 
deny the request.  End Comment.) 
Parnell