All hurdles have been cleared for the extradition of a Trinidadian man wanted in the United States on drug trafficking charges, as the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and denied a conditional stay.
Justices Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar, and Ronnie Boodoosingh delivered the ruling on March 25, also denying a conditional stay on the extradition process.
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.
Later in December, Justice of Appeal Nolan Bereaux stayed the extradition warrant pending the hearing and determination of the appeal in keeping with the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act, which provides for a stay once an appeal is filed against the dismissal of a habeas corpus application.
Bereaux also ordered an expedited appeal. However, Guppy’s attorneys missed the deadline to file the record of appeal, prompting the State to ask for the appeal to be dismissed.
Mohammed, who delivered the unanimous decision, said that even if the appeal had been properly filed, Rahim’s findings were reasonable.
The Appeal Court also ruled that Guppy’s extradition did not violate his right to family life, stating that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify barring his transfer.
Mohammed said that it could not be said that Rahim was "plainly wrong" in his assessment of the evidence concerning the three key issues raised in Guppy’s habeas corpus challenge. He explained that Rahim’s analysis and conclusions on the entrapment argument were reasonable.
Regarding the claim that Rahim had failed to properly analyse the issue of bad faith, Mohammed noted there was latitude with prosecutorial discretion and that there was no basis to conclude that US authorities acted in bad faith by charging Guppy while not prosecuting two American relatives implicated in the drug transaction. He said proving the differential treatment based on citizenship was a difficult threshold to cross.
The judges also concurred with Rahim’s stance that the entrapment argument was best left for a trial court to determine, particularly since entrapment is a defence under US law.
Addressing Guppy’s claim about the right to family life, Mohammed said Rahim properly directed himself in law, balancing the public interest in extradition against potential interference with family life. They found no evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify halting the extradition. Mohammed held that Rahim demonstrated awareness of the importance of family life but concluded that nothing in the case met the threshold for exceptional circumstances.
They also held it could not be said that Rahim failed to weigh the competing interests fairly or that he had erred in law. Mohammed said the Appeal Court would
