The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A MAN accused of playing a role in the armed robbery of Deputy Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis was denied bail yesterday.

Tyrone Knowles appeared before Justice Vera Watkins yesterday for a decision on submissions made by his lawyer and the Crown respondent on the question of bail before Knowles’ trial for the December 9, 2013, raid at Mr Davis’ home.

Mr Davis was acting prime minister at the time.

Justice Watkins ruled that denying the 25 year old a bond was “necessary to ensure his appearance at trial”, among other reasons.

Knowles, with 21-year-old Marc McCartney and 27-year-old Jeffrey King are scheduled to stand trial on May 2, 2016 if the trial does not begin on July 6, 2015, in connection with the matter.

They are accused of robbing Mr Davis of jewellery worth $93,000, a jewellery box worth $200, Baraka gold jewellery worth $700, an opal top wallet worth $450, a Royal Bank credit card and a driver’s licence worth $15.

The three are further accused of robbing Mr Davis’ wife, Ann Marie Davis, of $2,953, and Wilberforce Seymour of $10.

Knowles filed for bail partly on the grounds that co-accused McCartney was given $9,500 bail ahead of trial by Justice Watkins in December.

On Tuesday, prosecutor Linda Evans objected to bail on the grounds that there was no unreasonable delay in prosecuting the matter before the court. Ms Evans further emphasised that the applicant’s attempt to evade arrest ought to be viewed as an indication that he will not return for trial should he be granted bail.

Knowles’ lawyer Richard Bootle countered that his client, a Bahamian citizen, was a fit candidate for bail and was not a flight risk.

The lawyer stated that the assertion that Knowles resisted arrest ought not to be used against him, as this behaviour is not out of the ordinary.

Mr Bootle further noted that his client had no prior antecedents and was presumed innocent by law.

Justice Watkins deferred her decision until yesterday when she produced a written ruling, which was partly read into the record.

In denying bail, the judge found that “the charge of armed robbery is serious and the penalty is severe.”

“The seriousness of the offence and the severity of the penalty providence an incentive for the applicant to abscond and not return for his trial,” the judge noted.

The court also found that the respective trial dates fell within the timeline set out by parliament and the Court of Appeal.

Justice Watkins also noted that “the courts in the Bahamas are experiencing a proliferation of matters involving serious offences such as murder and armed robbery and in this regard the time lapse between the arraignment and trial is reasonable.”

“Based on the prevailing circumstances in the courts in the Bahamas, there will be no infringement of the applicant’s rights under Articles 19 or 20 of the Constitution.”

The court concluded that the information contained in an affidavit presented to the court “is an indication that the appellant may abscond should he be granted bail.”

“The continued detention of the applicant is therefore necessary to ensure his appearance at trial,” the judge ruled.