Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09KINGSTON749
2009-12-03 12:32:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Kingston
Cable title:  

EXTRADITION JAMAICA: CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL COKE

Tags:  PREL PGOV CVIS SNAR PINR ASEC SOCI CJAN KCOR KCRM JM 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKG #0749/01 3371232
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O R 031232Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY KINGSTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0339
INFO EC CARICOM COLLECTIVE
RHMFISS/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0103
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
C O N F I D E N T I A L KINGSTON 000749 

SIPDIS
STATE FOR WHA/CAR (J.MACK-WILSON, V.DEPIRRO, W.SMITH)
L/LEI (C.HOLLAND, A.KLUESNER)
INR/IAA (G.BOHIGIAN)
JUSTICE FOR OIA (P.PETTY)
TREASUTY FOR ERIN NEPHEW
INR/RES (R.WARNER)
AMEMBASSY BRIDGETOWN PASS TO AMEMBASSY GRENADA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/12/03
TAGS: PREL PGOV CVIS SNAR PINR ASEC SOCI CJAN KCOR KCRM JM
XL
SUBJECT: EXTRADITION JAMAICA: CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL COKE

REF: STATE 122699 (302220Z NOV 09)(NOTAL)
KINGSTON 962 (171909Z NOV 09)(NOTAL)
KINGSTON 924 (041544Z NOV 09)(NOTAL)
KINGSTON 731 (021835Z NOV 09)(NOTAL)

CLASSIFIED BY: LWMoss, P/E Counselor, State, Kingston; REASON:
1.4(B),(D)

Summary, Analysis, and Recommendation


C O N F I D E N T I A L KINGSTON 000749

SIPDIS
STATE FOR WHA/CAR (J.MACK-WILSON, V.DEPIRRO, W.SMITH)
L/LEI (C.HOLLAND, A.KLUESNER)
INR/IAA (G.BOHIGIAN)
JUSTICE FOR OIA (P.PETTY)
TREASUTY FOR ERIN NEPHEW
INR/RES (R.WARNER)
AMEMBASSY BRIDGETOWN PASS TO AMEMBASSY GRENADA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/12/03
TAGS: PREL PGOV CVIS SNAR PINR ASEC SOCI CJAN KCOR KCRM JM
XL
SUBJECT: EXTRADITION JAMAICA: CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL COKE

REF: STATE 122699 (302220Z NOV 09)(NOTAL)
KINGSTON 962 (171909Z NOV 09)(NOTAL)
KINGSTON 924 (041544Z NOV 09)(NOTAL)
KINGSTON 731 (021835Z NOV 09)(NOTAL)

CLASSIFIED BY: LWMoss, P/E Counselor, State, Kingston; REASON:
1.4(B),(D)

Summary, Analysis, and Recommendation



1.(C) The Government of Jamaica (GoJ) requests "technical legal
discussions" with the USG regarding the Mutual Legal Assistance
Treaty (MLAT) in reference to the U.S. request for the extradition
of Christopher Michael Coke to face narcotics and firearms
smuggling charges in New York, and in reference to future
extradition requests. In Post's estimate, this is a delaying
tactic: Coke's power in Tivoli Gardens and elsewhere in the
country, and influence over Prime Minister Bruce Golding's ruling
Jamaica Labour Party (JLP),are deeply entrenched. The GoJ
understandably fears bloodshed and civil unrest if he were
arrested. Post recommends that DOS and DOJ comply with the GoJ's
request to hold direct discussions regarding the applicability
provisions of the bilateral MLAT in the Coke extradition request.
The GoJ's Solicitor General has indicated to Charge' that he is
willing to travel to Washington for consultations. End Summary,
Analysis, and Recommendation.



2.(C) Per reftel (A),Charge' delivered the USG response to the
Government of Jamaica (GoJ)'s Minister of Justice Dorothy
Lightbourne's October 30 letter (reftel D) during a private meeting
with her, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Dr.
Kenneth Baugh, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade

(MFAFT) Permanent Secretary Amb. Evadne Coye, and Solicitor General
Douglas Leys, held at MFAFT the morning of December 1. Charge'
reiterated that the USG had been completely above board in pursuing
the Coke extradition request: the former U.S. Ambassador had
advised the Prime Minister in 2007 that the case was under
investigation and that an extradition request could be forthcoming,
and USG law enforcement officials had coordinated closely and
extensively with officials of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF)
and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) prior to the request.
While the U.S. had many good programs and initiatives ongoing in
Jamaica, the Coke extradition request was by far the most
important bilateral law enforcement issue and is receiving
widespread attention among USG agencies. The request had been
handled in accordance with the Extradition Treaty; all required
information had been provided. The USG recognized that the Treaty
allowed the GoJ to request additional information, and we had been
as forthcoming as practicable; however, the questions raised to
date by the GoJ should more properly be considered following Mr.
Coke's arrest, in the course of an extradition hearing in which
his attorneys could contest the content of the request. The USG
recognized that this particular extradition request would not be
easy to implement, but that the USG expected compliance, as had
been the practice in prior extradition requests. However, as a
good partner, the USG offered to assist in any way. Charge' noted
that he had arrived in Jamaica on August 18, and the extradition
had been requested on August 20; the USG was disappointed with the
lack of progress to date.



3.(C) Minister Baugh expressed concern that the GoJ must follow due
legal process in handling extradition requests. Noting that he was
not a legal technician, Baugh then asked Solicitor General Leys to
explain the GoJ's position. Leys began by noting that this was not
the best forum for technical legal questions, as USG attorneys
were not present, and the GoJ "fears that the matter requires
technical discussions," as there were "legal issues to be
resolved." After examining USG response, Leys said that "we had
expected a more definitive answer." He then asserted that "this
extradition request is outside the norm," and questioned whether
it represented a "developing trend" in which Jamaican constables
would give evidence in U.S. courts. He said the Coke extradition
request raised questions as to how similar requests would be
treated in the future. Answers were needed so that he could "inform

the Attorney General Lightbourne as she exercises her
responsibilities."



4.(SBU) Charge' then asked whether the GoJ considered the
information provided by the USG in the request insufficient to
meet the requirements of the Extradition Treaty. Leys replied that
this was not the case; however, the Extradition Treaty was only
one aspect of "normal routine." The steps under the MLAT must be
"better informed," particularly with respect to wiretap evidence.
Had the wiretap evidence been properly obtained? This
"extraordinary subject requires further dialogue." If there had
been a possible breach of MLAT treaty obligations, then the
extradition request "can't go much further;" if, on the other hand,
the USG could confirm that there had been no breach, then "the GoJ
can proceed." Charge' noted that, until this meeting, there had
been no suggestion of a breach of treaty. Leys responded that he
was not saying there had been a breach of the Extradition Treaty;
he was only saying that the GoJ needed further assistance and an
explanation from the USG - otherwise, "we must conclude a breach."




5.(C) Charge' then noted that the USG had worked hand-in-hand with
the GoJ on this extradition request, which was not outside
commonly accepted practice. He asked that any questions be
addressed following Coke's arrest during an extradition hearing.
Leys then said there were two issues: the narrow one of "the
courts," and the larger one of the steps required under the MLAT.
The "larger issue" was whether a trend was developing of Jamaicans
giving evidence in the U.S. without having followed MLAT
procedures. For the USG to say that this question "should be put
before a court of law" missed the larger point: this was a
"threshold decision" for the Attorney General ; therefore, the GoJ
was asking for technical discussions with the USG regarding the
MLAT. Baugh then noted that this was a "technical matter." Leys
questioned under what authority Jamaican officers had given
evidence in the U.S. Charge' noted that the evidence had been
given by employees of the GoJ as outlined in the extradition
package, and that his office could make internal inquiries
regarding the steps taken during this investigation. Baugh saw a
need for "clarification of the process." Leys then noted that this
was a process which the USG and UK had used to "inform other
extradition requests," and asked why the MLAT was not being used
to obtain evidence. Leys claimed this left him in a "no-man's
land; I don't know whether the U.S. is in breach of the MLAT. We
need a better understanding of the mechanism of the MLAT." He then
asserted that "this will determine future relations, how to go
forward with future extradition requests."

6.(C) Lightbourne then noted that the GoJ's question as to whether
"the information was obtained by the United States in accordance
with the treaty between Jamaica and the United States on Mutual
Legal Assistance in criminal matters and in accordance with the
provisions of the Mutual Assistance (Criminal Matters Act" (reftel
D) had not been answered. The USG response was "too qualified," and
"raised other questions." Leys also maintained that the USG
response did not address the question of the MLAT. Charge'
reiterated that, if Mr. Coke were to contest the extradition, this
question should be considered during the extradition hearing, and
also pointed out that the extradition request did not hinge on only
one officer's testimony. In response, Leys maintained that
"without the wiretap evidence, under Jamaican law the case goes
nowhere," and that "if this extradition request did not include the
wiretap evidence, I would advise the Attorney General against
proceeding." He described the wiretap evidence as "integral," and
said that "we need technical discussions to see why established
procedures were not followed." Leys said the wiretap evidence
represented vital "independent corroboration," and questioned "how
it was obtained from Jamaica."



7.(C) Baugh then noted that, when he recently had spoken with
former Assistant Secretary Shannon concerning the Coke extradition

request, he had asked that the USG provide complete answers to the
GoJ's questions. Charge' replied that the response delivered to
the GoJ represented the USG's "definitive answer" on the questions
raised by the Justice Ministry. Leys again asserted that the
question concerning the MLAT had not been addressed, and
maintained "we can deal with the other questions." In response to
ChargC)'s inquiry as to whether the GoJ questioned whether Jamaican
authorities had had permission to present evidence in the U.S.,
Leys replied that the question was "how the wiretap evidence had
gotten into U.S. courts without following MLAT procedures." Baugh
then asked whether "technical meetings" could be arranged to
address this "final hurdle." Charge' then asked if the GoJ would
no longer insist on the names of confidential informants. Leys
responded that the GoJ now understood that the USG would not
identify the confidential informants in the case, but added that
he did not mean to imply this no longer represented a problem for
the GoJ.



8.(C) Coye observed that the MLAT recognized the sovereignty of
both signatories, and asserted that, when the Jamaican officer had
gone to the U.S. to present evidence without following MLAT
procedures, Jamaica's sovereignty had been breached. Charge'
observed that "we are setting a bridge too far," and it seemed
that the GoJ's new standards were based on the subject involved,
rather than on points of law or our previous practice in
extradition matters. Leys replied that this was the first time the
MLAT issue "has come to the fore." Charge' acknowledged that the
question was not insignificant, but would be better handled during
an extradition hearing. Coye said that "what we're dealing with
goes beyond the Coke case; it's the principle of respecting the
MLAT." Charge' responded that, if Jamaican officers had gone to
the U.S. to present evidence on their own without any coordination
with the GoJ, he could understand this argument; however, this had
not been so, given the cooperation that had existed in putting the
case together. Coye noted that the MLAT Central Authorities had
not been consulted; this was the key point, and "we must stop the
erosion of principle - this is a government-to-government issue,"
adding that "small nations take sovereignty seriously." Charge'
responded that the USG was not suggesting that the GoJ should do
anything only because we asked it, but because compliance was in
accordance with the Treaty and previous unchallenged extradition
requests. Leys then said that, under the terms of the MLAT and
Jamaican law, the request for wiretap evidence should have gone to
the Minister of Justice (who had delegated authority to the
Director of Public Prosecutions); because wiretaps were involved,
the request then should have gone before a Jamaican judge, for
approval in accordance with MLAT procedures. Charge' then asked if
the GoJ's consideration of the extradition request had left it
uncertain as to whether competent Jamaican authorities had
authorized the introduction of evidence in the U.S., and, if so,
whether the GoJ's request for "technical legal discussions"
regarding the MLAT were intended to "provide information which your
investigation has not answered," to which Leys replied "yes."



9.(C) Charge' then observed that the GoJ appeared to be setting a
standard too high and difficult to Reach, and that applied only to
the Coke extradition. Baugh responded that the MLAT was "well
established." Leys summed up by saying the GoJ had not yet taken a
position with respect to the extradition request, but instead was
requesting further assistance from the USG in the form of technical
legal discussions. Coye noted that the USG had offered its
assistance with the extradition process; the request for technical
legal discussions was a request for assistance. Charge' noted that
the question as to whether evidence similarly had been introduced
in previous extradition cases would have to be considered.
Lightbourne replied that, even if this had been so, she was not now
at liberty to "ignore the law;" the key question was whether the
steps required under the MLAT had been followed. Charge' said the
Embassy would convey the GoJ's views to Washington. (Comment:
Embassy Kingston recommends that the DOJ lawyers deal directly with
Solicitor General Leys and Attorney General Lightbourne regarding
their MLAT concerns. Leys has indicated to Charge' that he is
willing to travel to Washington for consultations. Alternatively,

Post can use its good offices to arrange a suitable date / time for
a telephone conversation. Post remains convinced that the GoJ's
current misgivings about possible violation of MLAT provisions are
an effort to prolong the decision-making process indefinitely or to
deny the request. End Comment.)
Parnell