The Tribune

BY DENISE MAYCOCK

Tribune Freeport Reporter

dmaycock@tribunemedia.net

THE Bahamas Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal application of murder accused Dentawn Grant, who was denied bail by a Supreme Court judge for his own safety after attempts were made on his life.

Grant, who is charged with two counts of murder and attempted murder, had applied for bail in the Supreme Court, but the bail application was denied for his safety. Grant then filed an appeal on April 8.

The appeal application was before Sir Michael Barnett, Hon. Mr. Justice Isaacs, JA, and the Hon. Madam Justice Crane-Scott, JA. The appeal hearings were held on May 11 and 24, and June 23.

Alex Dorsett represented the appellant, Dentawn Grant. Basil Cumberbatch appeared as counsel for the respondents, the Department of Public Prosecutions.

Grant was charged with the three offences in March 2022. He applied for bail on March 14. The application was heard by Justice Guillimina Archer-Minns, and her ruling, dated April 6, denied the application bail.

The Supreme Court Judge denied Grant bail following an attack on him days earlier. It is alleged that before Grant’s arrest, his vehicle was shot at and he had plotted with others to retaliate for the attack. The persons who the appellant thought were responsible for his attack were murdered, leading to the attempted murder of the virtual complainant. It is alleged that Grant committed those offences.

The Judge considered Grant’s safety and was aware of the fact that “the incident occurred in a hotspot for crime and there is a strong possibility of retaliatory attacks.”

Once there is a basis that an accused person may be attacked on bail, the Court is obligated to deny bail to the applicant. However, a caveat can be applied if the applicant can demonstrate to the court that notwithstanding a finding that his life may be in danger, if released on bail, he is able to minimize that risk.

The appeal judges noted that Grant submitted to the Court of Appeal that he is willing to relocate to another island. Unfortunately, that submission was not made in the court below (The Supreme Court) and the judge could not be faulted for not applying her mind to the efficacy of such a condition in the circumstances.

In the premises, it was found that the judge’s decision to deny bail to the appellant on the grounds that the appellant’s life may be in danger is explicable and not unreasonable. Accordingly, Justice Minns was entitled on that basis to deny bail.

Grant had filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals on April 8 on three grounds that: the learned judge erred in law and/or acted unreasonably in granting the appellant bail; the judge erred in concluding that the evidence was cogent, and that the judge erred in law in and/or acted unreasonably in all the circumstances of the case.

Grant, 22, of New Providence, has one previous conviction which has been spent, and no pending matters. He is employed with his father as a skilled labourer.

The respondent’s opposition to the bail application was contained in an affidavit of Inspector Demetrious Taylor. The officer outlined why the judge should refuse bail due to the seriousness of the offences, the cogency of the evidence linking Grant to the offence, and the danger posed to Grant as a person who was charged with murder, if granted bail, may be killed as others similarly charged, had been.

In his submission before the Court of Appeals, Mr Dorsett advised that Mr Grant, his client, was willing to relocate to another island if that were possible to allay any fears that he may suffer the same fate as the alleged victims in his case. Mr Dorsett further complained that the judge characterized the respondents’ evidence of the appellant’s involvement in the offence charged as being “cogent.”

Mr Cumberbatch argued that the evidence of two witnesses provided a sufficiently fulsome case against the appellant that the judge could not be faulted for her use of the word “cogent.”

Appeal court judge Justice Isaacs found that although the judge may have erred in finding that the undue delay was not a live issue for her consideration and that the appellant may have posed a threat to the witnesses in his case, she did not err when she regarded the safety of the appellant as a pertinent factor for denial of bail.

The appeal judges dismissed the appeal and affirms the judge’s refusal of bail to Grant on the basis that the safety of the appellant if released on bail is an important factor for the judge’s consideration; and that the factor could not be minimized or negated by any condition of bail the court could impose.

Justice Crane Scott Isaacs agreed.

Justice Michael Barnett also agreed with the disposition by Justice Isaacs. He also stated that having regard to the material before the court, the murder appears to have been in retaliation to a previous attack on the appellant. He said there is not only risk of the appellant’s safety if granted bail, but also a risk to the public’s safety.

“Any retaliation against the appellant puts members of the public at risk who may be in the area where any attack on the appellant may take place,” he said. ‘In the circumstances, I am satisfied that in addition to the safety of the appellant, it is also in the interest of the safety of the public that the appellant should be denied bail,” Justice Barnett said.