Will Leroy King be swept away for fraud now?

- Advertisement -

Leroy King and his lawyer Dr. David Dorsett are yet to discuss what they plan to do after being defeated in the Court of Appeal in what was yet another attempt to toss an order to extradite the embattled former boss of the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC).
Dr. Dorsett told OBSERVER media yesterday afternoon that he had not yet received a copy of the decision of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, thus they are unable to determine their next move.
In response to the question about whether there would be an appeal or another application to challenge the extradition on some legal ground not yet explored, Dorsett said, “I have to see what the court has said, we are awaiting formal notice of the judgement.”
Currently, there is no stay of execution in place on the ruling of the Court of Appeal, and this means that King could be swept up and taken to face the U.S. court on the 11 fraud related charges filed in that jurisdiction.
A warrant to deliver King was signed several years ago but he remains in Antigua after filing multiple challenges to his extradition and each time he lost, he filed a new one.
The Director of Public Prosecution, Anthony Armstrong explained that this case is one that demonstrates how tedious and lengthy extradition matters can be.
“Extradition matters are highly technical and very tedious and involves several layers of law. The case demonstrated that even when they are being dealt with expeditiously, extradition matters can take quite a while to complete. In this one, Mr. King has done what he has a right to do, fought at every single stage.”
In 2010, the Government of the United States made a request to the Government of Antigua and Barbuda to extradite King, the former administrator of the FSRC.
Documents which were sent, showed that the request was grounded in a 21-count indictment returned in 2009 by a Grand Jury in the State of Texas. That indictment also charged the now infamous Allen Stanford as well as a number of other persons, most of whom were subsequently found guilty or pleaded guilty, Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in jail.
In 2010, King was also committed for extradition by the then Chief Magistrate Ivan Walters under the Extradition Act 1993.
Following his committal, King mounted a challenge in the High Court pursuant to section 13 of the Act for Habeas Corpus and also sought an order of certiorari to quash the committal.
The High Court, in early 2012 upheld in part his challenge by quashing 10 of the 21 charges, leaving him facing 11 allegations.
Immediately after this, the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was Baldwin Spencer at the time, exercising powers under the Extradition Act, gave notice to King by a letter on February 10, 2012, that he should show reasons why an order of return should not be made against him pursuant to section 14 of the Act.
King did not respond immediately, but six days later, he appealed the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal. And, then a month later, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis that it had no jurisdiction pursuant to section 31 to hear an appeal which arose from a ‘criminal cause of matter’.
In that same month, Foreign Affairs Minister Spencer ordered King’s return to the U.S. in relation to the charges for which he was committed.
He signed a warrant for the extradition and King received it on April 1, 2012.
Prior to the delivery of the warrant, King filed a constitutional motion seeking a number of declarations and orders. And, then when he received the warrant, he amended his claim and contended on the motion that his fundamental rights had been breached during the extradition process and he ought not to be returned.
Court records from judgments show that he asked for declarations to the effect that (a) he had a fundamental right to the protection of the law as guaranteed by section 3 of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution and this right had been breached by the Extradition Act failing to provide him with a right of appeal beyond the High Court; (b) to grant a right of appeal beyond the High Court to the requesting states when no such access was given to the person who was the subject of the request, was discriminatory and in breach of section 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of these and other grounds he sought an order to prohibit his return.
That motion also included an application for leave to apply for judicial review of Spencer’s decision to order the return of the claimant to the U.S. That application did not contain any grounds and did not otherwise comply with the Civil Procedure Rules. Numerous back and forth appearances occurred up until 2016 with further appeals and hearings, and this continued into 2017 and was further stretched into this year, with the latest ruling coming down from the Court of Appeal on Tuesday September 18. The court struck down all the aforementioned constitutional challenges and related applications.
The DPP, Armstrong has been leading the extradition case for the Crown since 2009.
Yesterday, he told OBSERVER media that although the case has been before the court for nine years, it is important to note that it has been dealt with expeditiously each time.
“The point I seek to make is that persons must not assume that because matters are not being dealt with based on their time table that there is nothing happening or that there is something afoot,” he said.

- Advertisement -