VZCZCXYZ0014
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKG #0174/01 0352229
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 042227Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY KINGSTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0650
INFO RHMFIUU/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
EC CARICOM COLLECTIVE
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0161
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA

UNCLAS KINGSTON 000174 
 
SIPDIS 
WHA FOR DAS REYNOSO 
WHA/CAR FOR V.DEPIRRO, W.SMITH, J.MACK-WILSON, M.FORTIN 
L/LEI 
JUSTICE FOR OIA (P.PETTY, P.MCKENNA) 
TREASURY FOR ERIN NEPHEW 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CJAN SNAR PREL SOCI EAID ASEC KCRM KCOR JM XL
SUBJECT: JAMAICA: EXTRADITION CASES OF PRESLEY BINGHAM AND 
CHRISTOPHER COKE 
 
REF: STATE 1444 (071801Z JAN 10)(NOTAL) 
KINGSTON 86 (222037Z JAN 10)(NOTAL) 
KINGSTON 114 (291917Z JAN 10)(NOTAL) 
 
Summary 
 
 
 
1.(SBU)  The Jamaican Attorney General and Solicitor General 
maintain that the denial of the USG's extradition request for 
Presley Bingham was an "unusual" case that will not become a 
precedent.  They also agreed to provide a more complete written 
justification for the denial of the Bingham extradition.  With 
respect to the pending extradition request for reputed narcotics 
and arms trafficker Christopher "Dudas" Coke, the Solicitor General 
maintains that the key unresolved question is whether critical 
information was disclosed to the USG in accordance with Jamaican 
law.  End Summary. 
 
 
 
2.(SBU)  In a private meeting with the Government of Jamaica 
(GoJ)'s Minister of Justice and Attorney General (AG) Dorothy 
Lightbourne and Solicitor General (SG) Douglas Leys on the 
afternoon of February 3, Charge' reiterated the USG's 
disappointment with the GoJ's denial of the extradition request for 
Presley Bingham (reftels) and sought preliminary clarification of 
the reasons for the GoJ's decision.  Prior to the arrival of the 
AG, the SG indicated to Charge' that his visit to Washington in 
December had been "productive," and had afforded an opportunity to 
discuss issues and problems surrounding extraditions; he believed 
the USG had a "growing appreciation of the issues between us." 
Charge' asked whether, with respect to the Christopher "Dudus" Coke 
extradition request, the SG considered the ball to be in the USG's 
court.  The SG replied that follow-up actions by both parties 
remained; the GoJ had "looked at other cases involving 
interceptions," and had concluded that the Coke case was one of 
"first impression."  The main issue in the Coke case was 
"unauthorized disclosure" of information to USG authorities which 
had not been in accordance with Jamaican law.  The SG said he 
understood, as a result of his visit to Washington, that the USG 
believed that proper procedures had been followed.  Upon his return 
to Jamaica, he had sent a letter to the Commissioner of Police 
inquiring as to the authority by which a Jamaican police officer 
had given testimony to a jury in the U.S.; he had not yet received 
a reply.  The SG noted that he also had sent a draft joint press 
release to the U.S. Department of Justice, and was awaiting a 
reply. 
 
 
 
3.(SBU)  When AG Lightbourne joined the meeting, Charge' expressed 
disappointment with the GoJ's surprising denial of the Bingham 
extradition request, noting that this was the first instance in 
which the Jamaican courts had ordered an extradition, but in which 
the surrender order subsequently had not been followed.  Charge' 
said that the USG was interested in the details underlying the 
GoJ's decision, and noted that, in keeping with the customary close 
collaboration between the GoJ and USG on extradition matters, 
ordinarily any problems would have been resolved before the arrest 
order had been signed.  Charge' emphasized that, in the initial 
extradition request, the 60-day limitation had not expired because 
of any delay on the part of the USG, but rather because of the 
GoJ's inaction; SG Leys readily acknowledged this point.  Charge' 
noted that Bingham initially had chosen not to appeal his 
extradition, and had not raised the arguments put forward by the 
AG.  Charge' noted that the AG had taken 59 days to issue a 
decision regarding the appeal, thus necessitating the USG's having 
to bring in a chartered aircraft to ensure that Bingham could have 
been removed from Jamaica before the expiration of the 60-day 
limitation.  AG Lightbourne said that she had been awaiting a brief 
by Bingham's lawyer, who had been off-island; a Cabinet meeting and 
the press of other business had resulted in issuance of her 
decision on the 59th day. 
 
 
 
4.(SBU)  In response to Charge's inquiry regarding the AG's finding 
that the Bingham extradition request had been "unjust and 
oppressive," Leys said that the GoJ would make a detailed written 
 
 
explanation available to the USG.  Leys noted that, while it had 
not been included in the written ruling, in dismissing the initial 
extradition request the judge had pronounced that the GoJ should 
"not think about" re-arresting Bingham for the same offense.  Leys 
noted that the Bingham case dated back to 1998, and had taken so 
long to be resolved through "no fault of the applicant."  Leys 
readily acknowledged that, in processing the initial extradition 
request, the Jamaican authorities had been remiss in allowing the 
60-day limitation to expire, and said the 17-month delay in the 
second extradition request had been excessive.  In light of these 
delays, it was necessary to "balance the rights of the accused with 
the interests of the requesting and the requested states."  The SG 
observed that, whenever a defendant is re-arrested after a long 
period, "memories fade, documents go missing, and witnesses 
relocate."  Charge' then asked why, when the AG had signed the 
renewed authorization to proceed in 2008, these factors had not 
been taken into consideration.  AG Lightbourne replied that, when 
she had signed the authorization, she had not realized that it was 
a renewal of a previous extradition request; she only realized this 
when, subsequently, Bingham's lawyer brought it to her attention. 
 
 
 
 
5.(SBU)  Charge' then pointed out that often extradition cases took 
many months or years to develop, and asked whether the AG's 
decision in the Bingham case might serve as an unfortunate 
precedent.  SG Leys replied that the Bingham case had been 
"peculiar," in that the court had discharged the case, and the USG 
then had submitted a renewed extradition request for the same 
offense.  Again, Leys readily acknowledged that the initial 
extradition request had been discharged "because of negligence" by 
GoJ authorities.  AG Lightbourne noted that Section 11 (3) (b) of 
the Extradition Treaty "would not make sense" if renewed 
extradition requests could be submitted for the same offense.  SG 
Leys then said that delay was "one of the factors" the Minister had 
taken into consideration in "exercising her discretion" under 
Section 12 (3) of the Extradition Treaty.  In response to Charge's 
inquiry as to whether these factors had been taken into 
consideration at the level of the magisterial court, the SG and AG 
replied that they could not say, as they had not been present.  SG 
Leys noted that the "unjust and oppressive" provision of the Treaty 
previously had applied in the Walter Byles extradition case. 
Charge' reiterated that, if the GoJ found problems or weaknesses in 
the course of extradition cases, they should be brought to the 
attention of the USG and resolved rather than waiting until the end 
of the process. 
 
 
 
6.(SBU)  Charge' then asked whether the USG should submit renewed 
extradition requests in the future.  SG Leys replied that "it's up 
to you," and noted that the Jamaican courts ordinarily adhered to a 
"fresh evidence" rule when accepting renewed cases.  Charge' 
reiterated that, in the initial extradition request, the court had 
not exonerated Bingham; instead, the case had been lost in the 
Jamaican system.  The USG considered this a crucial distinction. 
SG Leys said he appreciated this distinction, but that it had been 
necessary to "balance the rights of the accused with the rights of 
the requesting and requested states."  In response to Charge's 
inquiry as to whether the Bingham case might serve as a precedent, 
Leys replied "no, never," and Lightbourne called it "a most unusual 
case." 
 
 
 
7.(SBU)  SG Leys then said, in reference to the Coke extradition 
case, the key question was how information had been given to USG 
authorities without "modifications to the order to disclose 
information only to certain classes of persons."  Leys said he did 
not even know the name of the constable who had testified in the 
U.S.; the circumstances were under investigation.  He then noted 
that the question of whether the Minister of National Security 
should have been consulted was "no longer an issue."  The 
outstanding issue was whether information had been disclosed to the 
USG in accordance with Jamaican law. 
 
 
 
8.(SBU)  AG Lightbourne then emphasized that she was "fully 
 
 
supportive of the U.S. Government," and reiterated that the Bingham 
case was "unusual."  Leys said that, in the previous (People's 
National Party) administration, the Minister of Justice routinely 
had signed extradition arrest orders and forwarded them to the 
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) without careful review. 
Since the DPP represented the interests of the USG, from now on the 
SG would review extradition requests before the arrest orders were 
sent to the DPP.  Charge' reiterated that the USG did not submit 
frivolous extradition requests; these requests were only submitted 
for serious crimes.  Charge' noted that it was extremely 
frustrating to the USG that an extradition case on which the two 
governments had collaborated closely should be denied at the last 
minute; any possible steps to avoid a repeat of this episode should 
be taken.  Leys then maintained that the AG could have denied the 
Coke extradition request when the USG had not supplied all of the 
information requested by the GoJ; instead, the GoJ was working with 
the USG in hopes of resolving outstanding questions, and this 
should be understood as a sign of good relations.  Leys noted that 
he had found only one other extradition case involving intercepts; 
he believed it was that of Garth Lewis, and that no ruling had been 
rendered.  AG Lightbourne then cited a case in which a Jamaican 
mistakenly had been extradited to Maryland on a charge of first 
degree murder rather than second degree murder; the public defender 
now was attempting to have the case dismissed.  She said this 
illustrated the need for careful review by the SL of all 
extradition cases.  Charge' concluded by noting the prominent 
coverage given to the Coke and Bingham extradition cases by the 
Jamaican print and broadcast media; this made coordination between 
the GoJ and USG all the more essential. 
Parnell