Top court raises the bar for extradition

[CHIMO]

OTTAWA — Canada's highest court says judges are not mere rubber stamps in extradition cases — a ruling that could make it more difficult to send accused people to other countries for trial.

In a pair of decisions handed down Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the 1999 federal law governing extradition.

But the court set out a new test for judges when deciding whether an accused person should be handed over to another state.

It says the evidence at hand must amount to a case that could go to trial in Canada and potentially result in a guilty verdict.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1153518609697&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

[Spazito]

1. Wow!

This strikes me, at first blush, as both good and bad. Good given the bush cabal's total trashing of their laws governing fair trials, right to a lawyer, etc, but bad if, had this ruling been in place at the time, it would have stopped that serial killer from California from being extradited.

[MrPrax]

2. I wonder if this

ruling affects those under 'security certificates'


A Security certificate under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) is one way for the Government of Canada to remove a person who poses a danger to national security or to the safety of any person. A certificate is only issued when there is a need to use sensitive information that needs to be protected for reasons of national security or for the safety of any person.
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/newsroom/factsheets/2005/certificat-e.html">GovCan

It's kind of meaningless if the State can simply declare everything national security, classify the evidence and 'rendition' the fellow anyway. Since these days, the State has expanded the working definition of a non-legal term like 'terrorist' to include pretty much everything, it's not much of a protection.

Moreover, if Country A under it's laws have different 'evidentiary' procedures and different legal customs, what is Canada saying?...Canada reserves the right to 'veto' that evidence if it doesn't muster up to our standards? What is the interpretation if the offense is against a countries' 'blasphemy laws'?

What do we do? Tell them, no dice, because we don't even recognize that type of stuff? Are Canadian judges suppose to waste a lot of time trying to figure out 'foreign court' systems and then guess that the proceedings might be fair based on OUR system?

Seems unworkable, but I predict a whole whack of lawyers have found a way to keep their clients money rolling in for a few more years, while they tackle these questions.

[Bassic]

3. That's a good question.

I can't wait to hear what the Supreme Court is going to decide regarding those certificates constitutionnality. I guess the decision should come sometime around September.