THE Government yesterday said that Presley Bingham’s arrest in July last year on a renewed extradition request from the United States breached an instruction from the Court of Appeal in 2007 and was one of the reasons that Jamaica refused America’s petition.

According to Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne, Bingham was set free by the Court of Appeal on September 28, 2007 on a writ of habeas corpus filed on his behalf by his attorneys because he had not been extradited within the time prescribed by law.

“In discharging Mr Bingham, the Court of Appeal, in response to a question from the Director of Public Prosecutions representing the United States, said that the State should not even think of re-arresting Mr Bingham for the same offence,” Lightbourne said in a news release. “While this pronouncement was not part of the written judgement because the issue was raised after the judgement had been delivered, it is significant, coming from the Court of Appeal which had just given full consideration to all the issues in the case.”

Bingham was arrested on July 12, 2009 on a renewed request by the United States for the same offence and based on the same indictment, Lightbourne added. However, she said that after hearing submissions from Bingham’s lawyers and the Director of Public Prosecutions she refused the extradition request.

According to Lightbourne, “Article XI of the Extradition Treaty states that if a person is not extradited within the prescribed time, he may be discharged from custody and the requested state may subsequently refuse extradition for the same offence.

“Section 13 of the Extradition Act prescribes that where a person is not extradited within the stipulated time, he must be discharged by the Court.”

Lightbourne, who did not state what the prescribed time was, argued that if a person could be extradited on a renewed request for the same offence, it would render the provision of Section 13 of the Extradition Act not valid. She also said she considered several legal authorities dealing with “unjust and oppressive” circumstances in extradition proceedings and considered that in the absence of any contributory factor on his part, Bingham’s extradition would be unjust and oppressive within the meaning of Section 11 (3) (b) of the Extradition Act.

Bingham was released Friday from the Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre in Kingston after spending 25 months in custody.

His lawyer, Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, in a press release, said that Bingham, who is from St James, was first arrested on December 28, 2005 and released on the order of “our highest court” on July 31, 2007″.

“While attempting to rebuild his life, Mr Bingham was suddenly re-arrested on July 12, 2009,” Samuels-Brown said. “On both occasions his arrest was at the request of the United States Government for the very same charge, and on the basis of untested statements from persons who had bartered with the United States Government in order to gain benefits for themselves.”