Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis.
By EARYEL BOWLEG
Tribune Staff Reporter
ebowleg@tribunemedia.net
DEFENCE lawyers said the amendments to the Bail Act Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis announced in the House of Assembly yesterday in response to the soaring murder rate will not significantly change the status quo or affect Supreme Court judges’ discretion to grant people bail.
Mr Davis said the amendment would ensure bail is automatically revoked for people who violate their bail conditions.
His announcement came less than two weeks after Attorney General Ryan Pinder told reporters the Bail Act did not need to be amended.
“There’s adequate protection and adequate ability for the judiciary to deny bail in certain instances,” Mr Pinder told reporters earlier this year.
Magistrates can currently punish people who violate their bail conditions by fining them, as they often do, even when those people are accused of serious crimes such as murder. The amendment would remove this option and force magistrates to remand the accused.
However, lawyers say this may merely delay bail grants because it won’t stop accused people from applying to the Supreme Court, where the judges can use their discretion to release them.
“The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to admit persons to bail derives from its common law jurisdiction, and since its power was not given by Parliament, it cannot be taken away by Parliament,” attorney David Cash said yesterday. “When it comes to committing offences whilst on bail, this must mean convictions and not mere charges as the presumption of innocence must apply to each new charge.”
Debate about bail always intensifies during high murder periods such as the current one; 17 people have been murdered in 2024.
Ministry of National Security consultant Carlos Reid said last year that through November, 42 per cent of murder victims were men on bail for serious crimes. The issue has vexed successive police commissioners and stumped legislators, but judges have repeatedly noted that in a constitutional system where people are presumed innocent, there is no prohibition on bail.
Attorney Christina Galanos told The Tribune yesterday that the legislature cannot amend judges’ unfettered right to grant bail. She noted that the significant backlog of cases increases the likelihood that people will get bail.
“It’s not for politicians to tell judges to decide how or what manner to exercise their judicial discretion,” she said.
“In order for it to be determined that someone commits an offence while on bail, a jury has to come back and say that, because under our constitution, you’re innocent until proven guilty.
“Where we are with the backlog, there are some cases where alleged offences were committed all the way back in 2015, 2014, and 2013. We haven’t heard those cases yet.
“As long as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is in play, you cannot get a court to establish that someone committed an offence while on bail until you have a trial and good luck making that happen within the next three, four, five, or even six years. It sounds good. It sounds like something that is like a talking point, but really and truly, it makes no sense.”
Attorney Romona Farquharson Seymour similarly noted that being charged does not mean guilty.
“The police are saying, I suspect this person, I believe that we have sufficient evidence that they have committed the offence, but again, a jury of your peers, depending on the charge, must make that decision,” she said.
“We have to be very careful that we’re not having some sort of knee-jerk reaction to the increase in crime.
“The court should look at every circumstance. Every case is unique.”
A representative of the Bahamas Bar Association said the organisation will call a press conference to respond to the proposed amendments.
Comments
mandela 10 months, 1 week ago
We need more judges, is there perhaps a way that we can get judges from other commonwealth jurisdictions with a judiciary like ours on contract to help try these cases faster?
realfreethinker 10 months, 1 week ago
Here we go again. Bwave grandstanding knowing that his proposal is DOA. Another stunt to give the appearance of doing something.
bookiedread 10 months, 1 week ago
The government knows this bill has no teeth. If a person on bail for murder is accused of another crime the courts must first find them guilty in order for this bill to come into effect. But while out on bail what if the next offense is murder? What course of action is there? The criminals have stomped the government and all this bill does is try and make the government look like they are doing something when in fact nothing changes.
bahamianson 10 months, 1 week ago
So one lawyer is saying one thing and the other is saying another. Is Brave not a lawyer? Is wayne Munroe not a lawyer? Wayne makes his living of loopholes in exactly this. When Wayne Munroe is removed from office, he will be the first to challenge this which his party is enacting. The fox is in the hen house, so to speak. He will tear this apart.
Sickened 10 months, 1 week ago
We need some non-criminal hugging judges in the supreme court. Don't these judges look at the strength of the evidence before they let these violent criminals out on bail for $5,000k? I mean, if you get a case where a man is caught stabbing someone to death and then gorging on the warm body will these judges still grant him bail simply because he's still presumed innocent? I have a very strong suspicion that they would.
TalRussell 10 months, 1 week ago
There's notin' to suggest why it mustn't remain (legal) to belong to a street (crew) gang! ---- Has keep the same freedom as you do under the right to --- 'Freely identify' --- Hang out with Whatever/Whomever he/she wishes. --- Yes?
sheeprunner12 10 months, 1 week ago
It just goes to show that Brave Davis, Ryan Pinder & Wayne Munroe are not the brightest buttons on the coat ............... They are just playing the unwashed masses for fools.
But when they (3 musketeers) talk horseshit, the smart lawyers will put them in their places.
trueBahamian 10 months, 1 week ago
Nonsense! We need to fix the backlog of cases. I don't understand how the PM didn't figure out this bill is a waste of time beforehand. What sickens me in this article is that all of these defense attorneys are criticizing the bill but none have made a suggestion on how to address the underlying issue. A suggestion may translate to loss revenue aye? I'm pretty sure these defense attorneys given the lineup of clients that they have, they should have some good suggestions on how to tackle crime.
Dawes 10 months, 1 week ago
Make sure trials occur in a timely manner and you won't have this issue. Of course this would affect the amount of money lawyers make and as most politicians are lawyers this is a no no. Better to make sure people think you are trying to do something and do nothing then affect your revenue.
Sign in to comment
OpenID