Rodionov v Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| Judge | Baptiste J |
| Judgment Date | 02 August 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | KN 2002 HC 3 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis) |
| Docket Number | SKBHCV 0044 of 2002 |
| Date | 02 August 2002 |
High Court
Baptiste, J.
SKBHCV 0044 of 2002
Mr. Anthony Gonsalves and Mr. C. Perkins for the claimant/applicant.
Mr. Dennis Merchant for the defendant/respondent.
Constitutional law - Fundamental rights and freedoms — Whether the appellant's right to a fair trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by section 10(1) of the Constitution had been infringed by long delay in being brought to trial — Section 10(2)(e) of the Constitution — Finding that extradition proceedings were under the ambit of section 10 of the Constitution — Finding that there had bear no infringement of section 10 of the Constitution since the appellant's arrest was in 2000.
— Alexandre Yakovlevich Rodionov (the applicant) seeks declaratory and other reliefs under the constitution of the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis in relation to a request by Canada to the Government of Saint Christopher for his extradition to Canada.
The applicant who became a citizen of the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis in 1994 is the subject of a request by Canada for his extradition to stand trial on charges involving conspiracy to defraud. Pursuant to that request extradition proceedings were commenced and on November 30, 2001 an order of committal was made by the magistrate for the purpose of returning the applicant to Canada to stand trial. The applicant commenced proceedings for the issue of a Writ of habeas corpus in the High Court in Saint Christopher. After the completion of the habeas corpus proceedings the applicant obtained an order from the court staying proceedings brought under the Fugitive Offenders Act No. 1 of 1969 and preventing his rendition to Canada until the final determination of his constitutional action.
The claimant states that under the constitution of Saint Christopher and Nevis he is entitled to the following fundamental rights:
-
(a) Under section 10(1) of the Constitution, to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law;
-
(b) Under section 10(2)(e), to be afforded facilities to obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf before the court on the same conditions as those applying to witnesses called by the prosecution;
The claimant specifically states that section 10(2)(e) specifically guarantees that he is not to be placed in a lesser position than the prosecution in the actual conduct of his case.
The claimant claims that the trial of any criminal action against him by a court in Canada, pursuant to charges brought against him in Canada and for which proceedings under the Fugitive Offenders Act have been brought against him would constitute an infringement of his constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights mentioned aforesaid in that:
-
(a) the hearing would not be within “a reasonable time” as the substantive offences with which he is charged occurred between 1990 and 1992, some ten years ago and that this pre-trial delay without proof of prejudice by itself constitutes an infringement of his constitutional rights, and/or gives rise to an inference of prejudice against him without the necessity of proof of prejudice, and/or that consequent upon said delay prejudice would occur to him in the conduct of his defence;
-
(b) the hearing in Canada would not be a fair hearing as he would be deprived of the opportunity of presenting his defence in a proper manner and in any event would not be able to present his defence on an equal footing with the case of the prosecution, the witnesses and the documentary evidence situate in Russia to be relied upon by the claimant being beyond the reach and/or compellability, of the Canadian Court;
-
(c) he would be unable to compel the attendance of witnesses and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf before the Canadian Court, and in any event not on the same conditions as those applying to witnesses called by the prosecution;
-
(d) he would be unable to obtain documentary evidence in a satisfactory manner as same would be in the control of the Russian Authorities whose cooperation would be necessary to make any request for evidence worthwhile, but who according to Canada wish Canada to prosecute the claimant;
-
(e) he would be absolutely dependant upon Canada and Russia, the two parties who are acting against him, in obtaining evidence to use in repelling the claims being made against him by the said Parties, and especially in the case of the party receiving a request for the taking of evidence, be subject to the discretion and actions of a person other than the judiciary.
The claimant claims Declarations as follows:
-
(a) that the committal proceedings constitute part of the entire criminal trial of the claimant, and in the circumstances that the committal in St. Kitts of the claimant to stand trial in Canada constitutes a contravention, or the likelihood of a contravention of the fundamental rights of the claimant to a fair trial within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law;
-
(b) and/or that the trial of the claimant in Canada would in the circumstances constitute a contravention or the likelihood of a contravention of the claimant's fundamental rights to a fair hearing within a reasonable time; and of his right to be afforded facilities to obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf before the court on the same conditions as those applying to witnesses called by the prosecution.
-
(c) that the claimant not be returned to Canada pursuant to the proceedings brought against him under the Fugitive Offenders Act No. 1 of 1969 by the Government of Canada and that all proceedings in relation to the claimant under the Fugitive Offenders Act be...
To continue reading
Request your trial