By Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
THREE JAMAICAN men who are wanted in the United States on drug charges have failed in their attempts in the Supreme Court to have their extradition orders set aside.
They are Charles Clarke who is to face charges of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute marijuana; Clavel Brown who is charged with intent to distribute marijuana and Dave Antonio Grant who is to be sentenced for possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
Clarke was ordered extradited in November last year after a hearing in the Corporate Area Resident Magis-trate's Court. Clarke filed a writ of habeas corpus earlier this year seeking his release. He contended the requesting state acted in bad faith in that, it knew of the alleged offence before his deportation to Jamaica on January 23, 1998.
The Full Court, comprising Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe, Justice Karl Harrison and Justice Granville James, handed down its decision last week Friday and ruled the argument as to bad faith was seriously flawed. The court said there was not one scintilla of evidence that at the time of the deportation, the Federal Authorities had information of Clarke's involvement.
Brown contended in the motion that the charges against him were founded exclusively on the testimony of women who alleged they were involved in the trafficking of marijuana in 1995. He said there was no scientific proof the marijuana was in fact cannabis in accordance with American Law or Jamaican Law.
There is affidavit evidence Brown was the mastermind behind an elaborate distribution system in which women were used as drug mules to distribute marijuana. Each mule was paid a fee of US$1,000 per trip and provided with an airline ticket.
The court found the substance marijuana referred to in the certificate of the chemist was one and the same as "ganja" defined under the Dangerous Drugs Act of Jamaica. The court held there was nothing objectionable about accomplice evidence.
"Convictions founded upon such evidence are safe as long as the trial judge or jury understands that in acting upon such evidence caution must be applied," the Court ruled.
Grant contended no certificate of conviction and sentence, as was required by the Extradition Act, had been supplied.
It was the court's finding that "there can be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that he is not being referred to as a convicted person. Since he can only be a convicted person or an accused person, it follows inexorably that he is being committed as an accused person".
The court held that it was neither unjust nor oppressive to have Grant returned for sentencing.
