Senior Justice Jon Isaacs addresses controversial bail issue

Judge addresses controversial bail issue
By KRYSTEL ROLLE ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:



While acknowledging that every person accused of committing a crime is entitled to apply for bail, Senior Justice Jon Isaacs said Saturday he would have no difficulty denying it to a person accused of a serious crime if the case is tried within a reasonable period of time.

Isaacs was reacting to the government's declaration in the Speech from the Throne that it will bring an amendment to Parliament which would further restrict the right to bail for people charged with serious crimes, and to limit the circumstances under which bail may be granted.

"The only difficulty I would have is if persons are left to languish in prison for inordinate periods of time," said Isaacs, who was speaking during a panel discussion on 'Crime and its effects on our community', which was held on the greens of Super Value food store in Winton Estates. The panel discussion, which was attended by scores of Bahamians, was a part of the police and the Eastern Community Association's Fun Fantastic Festival.

"If persons are brought to trial within a reasonable period of time I have no difficulty with them remaining until such time as they face their accusers," Isaacs said.

Isaacs told The Nassau Guardian following the panel discussion that in most cases accused criminals are left in prison for long periods of time before their cases come to trial.

"That's where I have a problem," he said.

Asked what he considers a reasonable time for a case to come before the Supreme Court, Isaacs said every case has to be evaluated individually based on the evidence.

Thomas Evans, QC, who was also a member of the panel, said he considers two or three years to be a reasonable amount of time.

"But the reality on the ground is that you're [not] getting a case through the system until about five or six years," Evans said.

During the panel discussion, Isaacs recalled one case where four individuals were on bail for 16 years before their case went to trial.

"Imagine if you will if those persons were not allowed on bail for 16 years," he said. "Imagine their sense of grievance. What would the community offer by way of compensation? There is no redress for a person who has to spend time at Her Majesty's Prison awaiting trial."

Acknowledging that crime is spiraling out of control, Isaacs said he understands the society's call for harsher measures.

"There are those who advocate no bail for those accused of crime and harsher punishment for those convicted of offenses," Isaacs said. "While there may be some efficacy in the effort to deter persons from committing certain offenses by the imposition of stiff penalties, when one seeks to deprive those alleged to have committed offenses of their liberty without the benefit of a trial one has overstepped the permissible bounds of response to crime unless one is willing to ensure such persons receive trials within a reasonable time."

The government noted in the Speech from the Throne that a number of people who commit crimes do so while on bail pending trial for other offenses. That fact has led many Bahamians, over the past several months, to advocate for the complete restriction of bail for those accused of serious offenses.

Isaacs added that the court cannot pay attention to the whims and fancies of the community.

He pointed out that it would be hard for the government to undo what has already been done.

"What happens when you create a precedence - you cannot re-shut the door. Once that floodgate is open, the water is going to go through. Having allowed bail for one you must then consider bail for all," he said.

Isaacs added that it is not an easy decision to grant bail for people accused of serious crimes. Isaacs noted that when considering bail, judges have to consider the circumstances surrounding the incident, the offense, and the prosecution's reasons why a judge should oppose bail.

He said the main reasons why bail is denied is if the accused is considered a flight risk, or if there is reason to believe that the accused will re-offend while on bail.

"But if no such evidence is produced to the court at the time when bail is being considered then there is no real reason to keep the person in custody," Isaacs said.

Evans had similar sentiments.

"I would suggest that [the accused] ought not to be given bail if there is evidence to suggest that he is likely to commit offenses while he is on bail because what that does is jeopardize the right to secure people in society and the protection of the law and the security of the [alleged victim]."

Evans compared the job of passing judgment on an accused criminal before the court convicts him or her to walking "a very tight rope".

"It's very difficult to do," he said. "I know a little about that. It's a very difficult job. The bottom line is this, the society cannot be left out in the equation. What we have in our country now is a situation where we're almost overrun by criminal activity. The numbers are startling — 28 murders in the first four months of the year. It's astounding."

He pointed out that the prosecutor would have to prove why bail should be restricted for an individual accused of a crime.

"So once the prosecutors do their job in that respect then perhaps the courts will be persuaded to say, 'look given the facts that I have before me, given the circumstances of this particular case, I have to deny this man bail because otherwise there is a likelihood that the protection of the law and the security of the society is going to be compromised by his release'. But you can't expect the judge to do that if you can't prove it before him. We don't run kangaroo courts around here."


May 3, 2010

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International