Inmate faces extradition to U.S. after B.C. high court denies 8th judicial review

The British Columbia Court of Appeal says it is time to stop the "endless merry-go-round of judicial reviews and subsequent reconsiderations" by denying another request to stop the extradition of a transgender inmate.

Haedyn-Khris Beaumann, also known as Kevin Patterson, is charged with first-degree murder in Washington state and has been denied her eighth judicial review of a ministerial order of extradition.

Beaumann's lawyer argued the justice minister unreasonably rejected the latest application on her inability to access hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery if she's extradited to the United States.

The court agrees the minister's response was brief and "leaves much to be desired," but notes that, like all seven previous applications, it was submitted late, giving the minister discretion to refuse the application.

Beaumann is charged in the bludgeoning death of her roommate, but fled to B.C. where she was arrested and remains in custody fighting the extradition order issued in 2015.

She appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada but the case was refused last year and the B.C. Court of Appeal says the matter must end.

The unanimous ruling says Beaumann's judicial review applications have covered grounds ranging from concerns about the death penalty to her discovery of Aboriginal heritage.

The ruling says it wasn't until the seventh submission that Beaumann revealed her transgender status and the reassignment surgery was not discussed until the eighth legal application.

"According to her counsel, the applicant has identified as female since 2013,"Justice Christopher Grauer says in the written decision released Thursday.

The issue of treatment policies in Washington state "for transgender persons with gender dysphoria could and should have been raised well before this,"he says.

The question is whether extraditing Beaumann, thereby denying her treatments available in Canada, would "shock the conscience of Canadians," Grauer says, adding he does not believe the case rises to that level.

"In these circumstances, I conclude that the need for finality is an appropriate ground for denying the applicant's request,"he says.

"Remitting the submission to the minister for reconsideration would serve no useful purpose; that the minister would come to the same conclusion is inevitable."