The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

WHAT cadre of legal minds assembled by the Eugene Dupuch’s Law School for its Distinguished Lecture Series yesterday with Justices in Dialogue, and for which it was very timely:

What I will say is that and what I find intriguing is the diversity of opinion, and that’s fine, because no two people were created to hold all of the same perceptions on stuff.

But as I read from The Tribune’s article, I couldn’t help myself wondering to what extent they appreciate antonyms that have opposite meaning another, synonyms?

What also caught my attention was how little reflection was brought to bear on the overall checks and balances, the true spirit of the law, were blatantly missing... also missing from that panel were legal representatives from the department of public prosecutions, legal affairs, law reform commission, attorney general’s office, in order to counteract, bring a more balanced discourse, which appeared to be a one-sided event, I am sorry, but you know matters were too dire occurring in country, to sugarcoat the overall background to the administration of criminal justice in the land? After it is all said and done, my children and grandchildren will still have to call this place home, does it matter?

To what extent or degree does it matter the meaning of charge versus conviction?

For starters, there is no materially sensible proof of facts to lump them together when they can easily be considered cannot have one, without the other, holds true?

But as the Constitution these Isles dictates, after a criminal inflicts his crimes against members of the Bahamian public, there was legal redress for the victims of crime... and a way to have a systematic record of the events previously resulted-committed, is to report the crime to the police station officers, who would interview the complainant, victim and who will compile a file, go out and investigate, seek out witnesses to the crime(s), these were all steps, legally contrived, lawfully binding and after the suspicions farewell-founded, the suspect identified and arrested with what is written in the law based on methods of what the suspect did, the manner method of operation, whether violence was used, weapon held the victim under duress, demanding money, property, threatening harm or death if failing to comply with demands being made of the assailant(s) et cetera...and with the accompanying proof, the police charges the suspect(s) with the manner in which he behaved, his utterances, body language aggressive deploy, his robbery of the victim, or armed robbery, so I ask what’s difficult about that?

In conclusion, the police don’t just charge suspects of their own volition with crimes, and in isolation, in a vacuum, those criminal case files must be presented to the department of public prosecutions for instruction, et cetera?

Finally, also occupying a good percentage of justices’ comments had to do with the Presumption of Innocence? And surprisingly, that phraseology was being hammered on for an inordinately and frivolous amount of time, but why?

Presumption 1. syn. see effrontery - a flagrant disregard of courtesy or property and an arrogant assumption of privilege. 2. syn see Presupposition- an act of presupposing syn assumption, presumption, 3. syn see Assumption - something that is taken for granted or advanced as fact-decision based on assumption.

Now, Innocence - syn see ignorance 2. free from legal guilt or fault.

So, the basis of the rejection of bail for a person accused of having committed such crimes, are presumed innocent of the charges being laid by the police. And, therefore, they seemed to be advancing the belief that a police charge, therefore, does not have the legal ramification, the foothold to cause a suspect to be denied bail, no matter how many criminal charges were levelled against him, them, or the severities, many legally-minded Bahamians were at odds with this legal calculation advanced by our justices, appears legally problematic?

Surely, if one is able to have declared the presumption of innocence (subject to the outcome of a criminal trial?) the same way the presumption of innocence is declared, the presumption of guilt is the contrasting reality, that should, ought to have the same legal weight? So, justices, please do not dwell too in depth on the former, because it may very well be proven that the subject(s) were being brought guilty completely based on the evidence against them, period.

But you know, we should not be at this stage, having this conversation, on such a clearcut Constitutional dictate, self explanatory.

Submitted for what it is worth and as I have received it from On-High, hallelujah, amen.

FRANK GILBERT

Nassau,

March 15, 2024.