AN accused drug trafficker wanted in the United States has a little less than two months to convince the UK-based Privy Council to hear his challenge to his extradition.
Shurlan Guppy, 47, is wanted in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 11 charges related to heroin and cocaine trafficking, amounting to $1 million. His claims of entrapment, bad faith, and disproportionate interference with his family life were previously rejected by Justice Ricky Rahim on December 11, 2024. Rahim also upheld the decision of the extradition magistrate.
On March 25, Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar, and Ronnie Boodoosingh dismissed his appeal of the High Court’s decision to reject his claims of entrapment, selective prosecution, and disproportionate interference with his family life.
On April 16, Guppy’s attorneys unsuccessfully argued for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council.
After the judges delivered their unanimous oral decision to dismiss his application, attorney Ravi Rajcoomar, SC, gave an undertaking that he would not proceed with Guppy’s extradition during the 56 days allowed for filing a notice of special leave to the Privy Council.
In his application, Guppy’s attorney Gerald Ramdeen raised a procedural challenge related to how the court handled the State’s striking out application. The court then went on to hear the merits of the extradition challenge. He also said there were disputable issues relating to the entrapment argument and the child’s best interest.
However, in its unanimous ruling, delivered by Justice Boodoosingh, the court ruled that no genuinely disputable issues had arisen from the Appeal Court’s decision.
On the court’s discretion to hear the merits of the appeal while upholding the strike-out application, he noted that the Privy Council usually defers to the local court on procedures.
He also said the child’s interest was a critical and primary consideration for both courts.
Justice Boodoosingh explained that, based on the evidence before the judge, the child had been taken to the US to live with his mother when Guppy was arrested. He also noted that the judge evaluated the evidence and concluded it was in the child’s best interest to remain in the US with his mother, quoting extensively from the judge’s reasoning.
Justice Boodoosingh also pointed out that Rahim had conducted a balancing exercise between the child’s rights and the public interest in extradition, and that the Court of Appeal had agreed with this approach. He further noted that, in any event, the child was currently in the US, and there was no evidence to suggest that the child would be returned to Trinidad and Tobago or that the mother intended to relinquish her parental rights.
Justice Boodoosingh also rejected Ramdeen’s suggestion that the court should have ordered an updated evaluation on Guppy’s autistic son, who had been in Guppy’s care in Trinidad until he was arrested in September 2023.
He said it would have been “unrealistic” for the court to order local authorities to do an
