Posted September 17, 2018 09:00:23A federal court judge ruled Wednesday that Canada’s extradition treaty with the United States does not give him the authority to extradite Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to the United Kingdom, where he faces a terrorism charge.
The ruling comes amid a prolonged battle between the two countries over a Canadian law that requires a Canadian judge to issue warrants to arrest people who have fled abroad for terrorism-related offences.
The Supreme Court of Canada in October granted a request from the Canadian government to overturn that law.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision this week on the matter.
Canada’s extradition treaties with the U.S., France and the Netherlands are among the strongest in the world, with the treaty covering extradition to the U, S. and Canada, and the arrest and extradition to other countries.
The U.K. Justice Minister has repeatedly refused to issue warrantless extradition warrants to Canadians.
Trudeau has repeatedly said that the U and U.N. warrantless terrorist investigations have harmed Canada.
The judge in the case, Justice John McBain, said he agreed with the Canadian authorities’ argument that the treaty does not apply to Trudeau and that the government must show that it has sufficient grounds to issue the warrants.
The government argued that its extradition treaty does apply to Canada, but it’s not the same as the U’S.
McBain ruled that the extradition treaty applies to the extradition of Canadian citizens and permanent residents under the terms of a separate treaty, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and not to those who are arrested abroad under the U-S.
and U-N warrantless terrorism investigations.
“The fact that the provisions of the Anti Trespass Act apply to both the extradition and arrest provisions does not alter the general principles and considerations underlying those provisions,” he said.
“I find that the provision that the Anti Terrorism Act authorizes a foreign country to provide for the arrest of Canadians does not violate the provisions under the Anti extradition Treaty.”
The judge said that in determining whether a Canadian can be arrested without warrant, the court should look to the circumstances of the alleged offence.
“In these circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the arrestee may be apprehended and charged,” McBains said.
“In other words, the fact that a person may be arrested and charged does not negate the validity of the arrest warrant.”
He said the fact the alleged offences occurred abroad and that they were committed by Canadian citizens does not mean they cannot be prosecuted by the country where they were allegedly committed.
“To the contrary, the mere fact that they may have committed the offence at all, does not render the arrest inadmissible.”
McBains also said that when a foreign government provides for the extradition to be authorized, it must provide for adequate security for the alleged victim and that there must be no evidence that the person was not acting under circumstances of reasonable suspicion that they had committed the offences.
“That does not preclude the United Nations from acting in the absence of a declaration from a foreign court,” he wrote.
“If the alleged offender had been apprehended and indicted by a foreign prosecutor, the United Nation would have the authority and responsibility to bring that person before a court.”
The court said the extradition agreement with the US is not an extradition treaty, but an agreement with other countries to cooperate on a specific case.
It did not rule on the merits of that case, but said the treaty is relevant to the case.
“This case involves the arrest or detention of a Canadian citizen, a U. S. citizen, or a permanent resident of Canada,” McBrien wrote.
“The United States is not a party to the Agreement.
Nor are the parties to the agreement bound by the Agreement in respect of the conduct alleged.
The agreement has not been terminated by the United State.”
Foreign Office declined to comment.