Shurlan Guppy (Appellant) v The Commissioner of Prisons and another (Respondents) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0051

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Shurlan Guppy

Respondent(s)

The Commissioner of Prisons

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Issue

Can the appellant lawfully be extradited to the USA to be tried for drug-trafficking related offences?

Facts

This is an appeal against a writ of habeas corpus, whereby the appellant has applied to the court to challenge the lawfulness of his detention and extradition to the USA. The appellant was arrested on 25 September 2023. The arrest warrant was issued following the request by the USA for the appellant to face trial on indictment for four drug-trafficking related offences. The evidence in support of the charges was gathered using an informant (“P1”) in the USA. P1 became an informant to US law enforcement in April 2020, following his arrest for controlled substance and firearms offences. On the request of the US Government, from 2020 to 2021, P1 then contacted the appellant numerous times regarding drug related transactions. Several shipments of heroin were arranged between P1 and the appellant, which were then intercepted and seized by the US authorities. During this time, P1 and the appellant also corresponded regarding debts owed by P1 to the appellant. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) transferred $5,000 USD to P1 for the purpose of paying P1’s debts to the appellant. Evidence also arose concerning the appellant’s wife and father-in-law, who are US citizens. They were included as co-conspirators in the appellant’s indictment, although they have not been arrested or charged with these offences. The appellant was committed to custody on 31 July 2024. He brought the claim seeking his release from custody on 14 August 2024. He argued that the evidence against him was obtained by entrapment, such that he should not be extradited. Entrapment occurs when an agent of the state causes someone to commit an offence in order to prosecute them for that offence. The appellant also argued that his extradition would be unjust due to his relationship with his 11-year-old son. His son, known as T, is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The appellant argued that his presence in Trinidad and Tobago was necessary due to his relationship with T. As such, he argued that his extradition would be unjust due to the disruption it would cause for T’s life and wellbeing. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s claim. First, the High Court did not accept the appellant’s evidence that all the evidence obtained against him could only have been obtained by entrapment. Therefore, a fair trial could still take place in the USA. The High Court also considered that there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the US authorities. Secondly, the High Court considered that the extradition of the appellant to the USA was a proportionate interference with his and T's right to a family life, due to the strong public interest in extradition and the lack of independent evidence to show that it would have a negative impact upon T. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.