A former bank employee who has been fighting an extradition request by the US Government for him to stand trial on mail and wire fraud charges, on Thursday lost his bid to challenge the ruling of a Parish Court Judge that keeps him behind bars until the order releasing him to American law enforcers has been prepared by the justice ministry.

Ferlando McCoon was arrested in Westmoreland in November 2019 on an extradition warrant. United States prosecutors in 2020 submitted evidence to the Jamaican authorities outlining the allegations against McCoon in a scamming ring which allegedly bilked people out of their retirement funds, netting millions in the process.

According to Federal court documents, McCoon operated a fraudulent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) e-mail address and had logged into the e-mail account 196 times while using a computer IP address in Jamaica.

The Parish Court judge, following an extradition hearing which commenced in December 2021, concluded in March last year that “there was a prima facie case made out on the evidence” placed before her against McCoon.

The judge then ordered a warrant of committal authorising McCoon’s detention pending the extradition order by the minister of justice and the commencement of removal proceedings.

McCoon, however, vigorously challenged the extradition request and filed a Supreme Court claim asking the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus to have him before the tribunal so he could challenge whether his detention was legal. He also asked the court to declare, among other things, that his constitutional right to a fair hearing under the constitution had been breached, that his right to freedom of movement had been breached, and that his detention at the Tower Street Correctional Centre was a breach of his constitutional rights.

He further sought a declaration by the court that his extradition based on the request of the United States and the March 2023 warrant issued by the Parish Court judge in relation to that request “is in breach of and/or is likely to breach (his) rights” under the Charter of Rights.

McCoon also sought an order from the Full Court that he “be forthwith released from custody” along with an “Order that the warrant of committal ordered by the judge of the Parish Court for the Corporate Area on March 31, 2023 be vacated/permanently stayed”.

His attorneys also sought the court’s reasoning on whether the failure of the judge to disclose the identity and status of cooperating witnesses amounted to a breach of the fair hearing provision and whether computer-generated evidence was admissible.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court full panel, comprising justices Stephane Jackson-Haisley, Simone Wolfe-Reece, and Tricia Hutchinson-Shelly, in handing down their decision, said, “the orders and declarations sought on the Fixed Date Claim Form filed April 14, 2023 are refused”.

“The duty of the Full Court is to examine whether the Parish Judge was correct when she found that there was sufficient evidence on which to commit the claimant. Once the Parish Court judge was satisfied that the provisions of section 14 were complied with she had a duty to receive the evidence. The learned Parish Court judge’s duty was to consider the evidence contained in the authenticated documents and determine whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the subject. To do otherwise would, to our minds, be usurping her functions,” the judges said in their draft judgment.

“We find that based on the evidence contained in the authenticated documents, the decision of the learned parish judge was supported by the material presented on behalf of the requesting State. We therefore find that the application for habeas corpus for Mr McCoon to be released from the Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre is not a remedy that is available to him and the application for a writ of habeas corpus is refused,” they said further.

A composed McCoon, neatly clad, was seen seated between correctional officers outside the courtroom after the ruling was made.

The Jamaica Observer was not able to verify whether McCoon will challenge the ruling of the Constitutional Court before the Appeal Court, as is his right.