‘Not too late’

The lawyer leading the fight to prevent Alex Tasker from being deported to the United States to face money laundering charges insists the appeal against the extradition should be allowed, despite the prosecution’s suggestion that it was not filed in time.

King’s Counsel Andrew Pilgrim made the submission on Tuesday before the Court of Appeal, insisting that even if the appeal was “out of time” under the Extradition Act, it was not under the Magistrate’s Court Act.

Last September, Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes ruled that Tasker, a former senior executive at the Insurance Corporation of Barbados Ltd (ICBL), be extradited to the US to face charges that between August 2015 and April 2016, he conspired with others to launder money from outside the country in violation of US law.

Pilgrim, who along with Neville Reid and Lani Daisley are representing Tasker, subsequently appealed the decision.

However, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Alliston Seale and Senior State Counsel Oliver Thomas, who are representing the United States in the matter, contended that Pilgrim filed the appeal after the stipulated 15-day period had expired.

In his submissions, Pilgrim pointed out to the panel hearing the matter – Chief Justice Sir Patterson Cheltenham, Justice Rajendra Narine and Justice Francis Belle – that he had filed an appeal under both the Magistrate’s Court Act and the Extradition Act.

He argued that under Section 238 of the Magistrate’s Court Act, any person had the right to appeal any decision.

“My interpretation of that is that it is specifically saying that where there is a conviction or where there is a different type of proceeding other than one in which a conviction would be the result, the complainant or informant – in this case, it would be the USA – has the right to appeal.

“It is also saying that a defendant or a person negatively affected by an order has a right to appeal. It is very clear in this language that it is not limiting the proceedings to summary proceedings or indeed to preliminary inquiries. The language is distinctly broad and wide, in my humble submission, and it is indicating a jurisdiction which in my submission encompasses all matters before a magistrate,” Pilgrim argued.

“….It is in my humble submission this Section 238 (1) gives all persons before magistrates in Barbados the right to appeal any order against them and it is my submission that this is not a right that should be easily subtracted from or denigrated from and there is no indication, in my humble submission, that the Extradition Act stands separate and apart from this.”

Pilgrim said while the Extradition Act became law in 1980, the Magistrate’s Court Act was passed “a long time after”, in 1990, and therefore superseded it.

However, Seale has contended that Pilgrim was out of time and, as such, there was no recourse under the Magistrate’s Court Act.

He said Tasker was ordered to be extradited on September 8, 2021, which meant the appeal would have had to be filed by September 23. That did not happen until September 28.

Pilgrim said he had encountered difficulties in filing the appeal.

The Chief Justice acknowledged there had been delays, and asked Pilgrim how much he blamed the system for the issues he encountered while filing the appeal under the Extradition Act.

“I would have to say entirely,” the senior lawyer responded while pointing out that the process was much more complicated now than it was in the past.

The Chief Justice said the court could not be harsh on Pilgrim, based on the malfunctioning of the system.

The matter was adjourned until Friday at 10 a.m. when Pilgrim will wrap up and Seale will make his submissions.