LONDON: Canadian courts have no jurisdiction to try a former British Columbia resident on manslaughter charges in connection with a 1985 bomb explosion at Narita Airport in Tokyo, Britain’s High Court was told yesterday. “The crime can have but one location,” lawyer Harjit Singh argued as he sought to persuade three senior British Justices to overturn a lower court decision ordering his client, Inderjit Singh Reyat extradited to Canada in connection with the incident. ”The offence could only be committed in Japan where the result took place,” Harjit Singh added.

But his arguments, for the second consecutive day ran into some tough questioning from the High Court Justices.

Canada is seeking the return of Mr. Reyat, a 36 year old electrician and engineer now living in Coventry, England to face eight charges, including two counts of manslaughter, in connection with the June 23, 1985 explosion.

Two Japanese baggage handlers died when the bomb exploded in luggage from a Canadian Pacific Airlines flight that had just landed in Tokyo from Vancouver.

The Canadian government argues that Mr. Reyat, who lived in Duncan, B.C. at the time, purchased materials in British Columbia similar to those found in debris after the explosion. Canada also argues it has enough evidence to persuade a jury that Mr. Reyat assembled the bomb, handed it to someone else and was involved with others in placing it on board the CP Air flight.

But Harjit Singh argued for almost four hours yesterday that the essential element in any legal definition of “manslaughter” is the actual killing.

In this case, since the two deaths occurred in Tokyo, it should be Japan and not Canada that seeks to prosecute anyone it thinks may be responsible, he said.

Harjit Singh also cited Section S of the Canadian Criminal Code that says as a general rule; “No person shall be convicted … of an offence committed outside Canada.” Mr. Reyat faces explosives charges in Canada, in addition to the manslaughter charges.

Harjit Singh also suggested a court ruling alone would not be enough to give Canadian court’s jurisdiction over deaths occurring in other countries. His argument provoked sharp attacks at various points of the day from all three Justices.

You may be right in law,” said Mr. Justice Anthony Mc Cowan, “But what about common sense? Let’s try to use common sense now. ”Let’s take this case of a bomb made in Canada put on a aircraft there, which happened to go off at an airport in Tokyo.

Are you actually saying that no. Significant part of the crime took place in Canada?

Harjit Singh replied with his contention that the key is where the deaths occurred.

Lord Justice Michael Mann also challenged that argument, saying such a limitation would not be “in tune with the realities of the modern world” where international travel and international crime are common, ”The consequence of what was done in Canada was felt outside Canada, thereby consummating the crime of manslaughter” he said.

Lord Justice Taskar Watkins, chairman of the panel, said the 1985 Supreme Court ruling means: in effect that the Canadian courts should decide for themselves whether to seize jurisdiction “after considering the degree to which Canadian acts compare in balance to those that took place outside that country.”

Article extracted from this publication >>  January 27, 1989