Holding murder charged for up to three years 'may be unconstitutional'
By TANEKA THOMPSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
tthompson@tribunemedia.net:
THE Government's intent to amend the law to hold people charged with murder in Her Majesty's Prison for up to three years without trial may be "unconstitutional", with some in the legal community arguing it will violate human rights.
Currently, a person charged with murder or another serious offence can be granted bail if they have not been brought to trial in a reasonable amount of time. Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has indicated that his administration plans to specify in law that a reasonable amount of time would be three years.
It's a move by the Government to cut down on the number of offenders committing crimes while on bail, and assuage public outcry over those accused of murder being granted bail.
However, the decision has garnered criticism in the legal community.
Damian Gomez, partner in the law firm Chilcott Chambers, told The Tribune: "It's a violation of Article 20, it's a violation of Article 19 (of the constitution) and it's a violation of the common law which says that all citizens have the right not to be deprived of their liberty without some cause."
Mr Gomez, a former senator who has been practising law for more than 20 years, added that it is the fault of the police and prosecution for charging persons with serious offences without sufficient evidence in hand to try them quickly.
"If you charge someone with murder you ought to have enough evidence to proceed immediately. If you know the evidence that you have is insufficient to obtain a conviction, you have no basis then for charging them.
"The real issue is why haven't these people been tried within a reasonable amount of time?"
Attorney Paul Moss believes such a practice violates the human rights of innocent people who may be brought up on murder charges and are forced to languish behind bars for years while police and prosecution search for further evidence.
"Everyone wants a criminal to be locked up, but certainly people don't want the innocent to be locked up. Extending (holding) time to three years is not reasonable. I'm not sure that it's constitutional but certainly it is not the answer because all it means is that they are not on bail but after three years they will get bail and what do you do then, extend it to five years?
"If the government, because of its own failure, is unable to get people to court in a timely fashion, the constitution will not bend to them."
Last month, when speaking to Parliament about proposed amendments to the Bail Act and the issue of crime, Mr Ingraham said he is confident the changes will be lawful and stand up in court.
"The only time you cannot deny bail is when the person has not been tried within a reasonable period of time, but there is no such thing as an absolute right to bail, notwithstanding what anybody else says.
"And it is our intention in the Bahamas to propose that in the context of the Bahamas, a reasonable period of time is three years. We are satisfied that such a provision will withstand any challenge before all competent courts of jurisdiction for the Bahamas."
June 22, 2010
tribune242
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
