Former Insurance Executive Alex Tasker Awaits Decision on Extradition Appeal in Money Laundering Case - Update from Caribbean Court of Justice

By Emmanuel Joseph

Former insurance executive Alex Tasker will have to wait a little longer to know whether he is successful in his second bid to get special leave to appeal his extradition to the United States on money laundering and conspiracy to launder money charges.

The Trinidad-headquartered Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) which met in Barbados on Monday and heard from lawyers for Tasker and the US government on the matter, announced it would reserve its decision on this second “urgent request…to hear further interventions” from the applicant.

In July, the CCJ, this country’s final appellate court, had rejected Tasker’s application for special leave to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal, saying it did not meet the necessary requirements. The Barbados court had dismissed his attempt to appeal the order made in September 2021 by Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes for him to surrender to US authorities.

On Monday, the five-member regional panel of judges also ruled that its previous order which placed a stay on any legal action against the former vice president of the Insurance Corporation of Barbados Limited (ICBL) pending the outcome of this latest application would remain until a determination is made.

Tasker was not present in court for Monday’s hearing.

In his submission to the CCJ, Douglas L. Mendes SC, who is leading the legal team that also includes Andrew Pilgrim SC and Clay Hackett on behalf of the former insurance executive, argued that the Court of Appeal was wrong to reject his client’s notice of appeal simply because it was not properly filed as an application for leave to appeal and that the amended document was subsequently lodged a few days late.

“The court ought not to have shut the door on Tasker because his lawyer did it [filed the document] in the wrong way,” Mendes submitted.

The lawyer suggested that because of a technicality, the Court of Appeal should not have been absolute in rejecting the late application and denying his client access to be heard as a matter of natural justice and a constitutional right to a fair hearing.

He contended that the very fact that Tasker had filed a notice to appeal demonstrated his intent to apply for special leave to appeal once that door was open.

“He sought to invoke jurisdiction of the court, but was too late through no fault of his own,” the senior counsel said.

Mendes also asked the court to accept his client’s plea of “exceptional circumstances” where a legal document was filed late although the litigant was already “knocking on the door” as in this case.