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.
Showing posts with label Damian Gomez. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Damian Gomez. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Government urged to tread carefully on bail change
Govt urged to tread carefully on bail change
By Candia Dames ~ Guardian News Editor ~ candia@nasguard.com:
In crafting its amendment to the Bail Act the government must be careful that it does not legislate anything that would violate the constitutional rights of any citizens, according to prominent attorney Damian Gomez.
Another noted attorney, Wayne Munroe, said in an interview with The Nassau Guardian yesterday that any law that is found to be unconstitutional would have no impact.
"The Supreme Court will strike down any law that would violate somebody's constitutional right," Munroe said.
Gomez and Munroe, who spoke to The Guardian separately, were 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 persons charged with serious crimes, and to limit the circumstances under which bail may be granted.
Munroe noted that currently bail is granted in three instances: When a suspect has been on remand for an unreasonable period of time; when a judge determines the evidence against that suspect is not strong and when a determination is made that prison conditions are such that a medical condition might result in a person's death in prison.
Under the Bahamian constitution, if any person is charged with a criminal offense, unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.
Gomez believes that it is often the fault of the Office of the Attorney General that many cases are delayed.
"The real question is why is it taking us so long to provide the attorney general's office with the resources to ensure that it carries out its lawful mandate," he said. "If it isn't a question of resources, what is happening in that office that causes delays which inflict incarceration of persons who have in fact not been convicted? We are hopeful that the government in its efforts to curtail the conditions under which bail is granted does not impede on the constitutional rights of accused persons and does not ignore the responsibility of the government to ensure our attorney general's office [has the necessary resources] and is efficient in the delivery of the services the public expects it to deliver.
"Until we resolve those problems associated with efficiency and with levels of resources we are going to be confronted with situations in which the public becomes alarmed, anxious and fearful that the law is not in fact being carried out and that persons are able to commit crimes and to do so with impunity. We are hopeful that the resources will be provided to the attorney general's office and I will be surprised if any legislative measure can be used as a substitute for the resources for that department. Until that department is properly resourced we will have the specter of long delays which result in bail being granted."
Gomez added, "We can only at this stage reiterate the warning that we are a constitutional democracy and the provisions of Article 20 of the constitution apply to criminal proceedings and civil proceedings, and the rights of accused persons are constitutionally protected rights."
Meanwhile, Munroe questioned whether the government's motives are pure as it regards its plan to introduce an amendment to the Bail Act.
"I think it's done for a cheap political gain and if that's how they tend to deal with the liberty of the subject then it's for the subject to determine whether that's reasonable," he said.
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.
April 16 2010
thenassauguardian
By Candia Dames ~ Guardian News Editor ~ candia@nasguard.com:
In crafting its amendment to the Bail Act the government must be careful that it does not legislate anything that would violate the constitutional rights of any citizens, according to prominent attorney Damian Gomez.
Another noted attorney, Wayne Munroe, said in an interview with The Nassau Guardian yesterday that any law that is found to be unconstitutional would have no impact.
"The Supreme Court will strike down any law that would violate somebody's constitutional right," Munroe said.
Gomez and Munroe, who spoke to The Guardian separately, were 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 persons charged with serious crimes, and to limit the circumstances under which bail may be granted.
Munroe noted that currently bail is granted in three instances: When a suspect has been on remand for an unreasonable period of time; when a judge determines the evidence against that suspect is not strong and when a determination is made that prison conditions are such that a medical condition might result in a person's death in prison.
Under the Bahamian constitution, if any person is charged with a criminal offense, unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.
Gomez believes that it is often the fault of the Office of the Attorney General that many cases are delayed.
"The real question is why is it taking us so long to provide the attorney general's office with the resources to ensure that it carries out its lawful mandate," he said. "If it isn't a question of resources, what is happening in that office that causes delays which inflict incarceration of persons who have in fact not been convicted? We are hopeful that the government in its efforts to curtail the conditions under which bail is granted does not impede on the constitutional rights of accused persons and does not ignore the responsibility of the government to ensure our attorney general's office [has the necessary resources] and is efficient in the delivery of the services the public expects it to deliver.
"Until we resolve those problems associated with efficiency and with levels of resources we are going to be confronted with situations in which the public becomes alarmed, anxious and fearful that the law is not in fact being carried out and that persons are able to commit crimes and to do so with impunity. We are hopeful that the resources will be provided to the attorney general's office and I will be surprised if any legislative measure can be used as a substitute for the resources for that department. Until that department is properly resourced we will have the specter of long delays which result in bail being granted."
Gomez added, "We can only at this stage reiterate the warning that we are a constitutional democracy and the provisions of Article 20 of the constitution apply to criminal proceedings and civil proceedings, and the rights of accused persons are constitutionally protected rights."
Meanwhile, Munroe questioned whether the government's motives are pure as it regards its plan to introduce an amendment to the Bail Act.
"I think it's done for a cheap political gain and if that's how they tend to deal with the liberty of the subject then it's for the subject to determine whether that's reasonable," he said.
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.
April 16 2010
thenassauguardian
Monday, February 2, 2004
Bahamasair Board plans to sue Shell Bahamas Limited
Bahamasair Suing Shell
02/02/2004
Bahamasair's board plans to sue Shell Bahamas Limited, claiming that the oil company has been unfairly charging the airline for use of its pipeline needed for refueling planes at the Nassau International Airport.
The Journal has learnt that the airline's attorney, Damian Gomez, recently presented a writ to commence the action against Shell, but the board was not pleased and asked him to strengthen the document.
An airline official said that should the board be successful in its actions, "the fuel bill would go down considerably."
The airline continues to pay Shell for fuel as well as for use of the pipeline or hydrant system that provides the fuel.
An earlier Journal report that revealed details of the dispute points out that the development of the hydrant was initiated by the former government in an attempt to reduce congestion on the ramp, caused by all the service vehicles around an aircraft at any given time.
This development reportedly was supposed to offer multiple fuel pits at each gate with an extension around the Family Island pier having small fuel carts at each gate eliminating the need for huge fuel trucks maneuvering around the aircraft.
The fee was introduced by the members of the consortium Esso, Shell and Texaco in 1995 after the redevelopment of the hydrant system at Nassau International Airport. Initially it was referred to as a hydrant fee, intended to recover the investment of $2.8 million spent to develop the system.
But Bahamasair officials say that they should not have to pay this refueling charge because Shell has already recovered the investment. They claim that the airline has been charged wrongfully to the tune of at least $1 million.
The airline official said, "It's important that we do anything we can to cut costs." He claimed that the fee actually amounts to about $600,000 a year and Bahamasair should not continue to pay it.
But a Shell source pointed out that the gas company has to continue to pay maintenance charges for the airport facility.
"Bahamasair fails to understand that Shell has to make a profit," he said. The board will undoubtedly face strong opposition from Shell as it proceeds with its action.
The board also reportedly wants fuel prices to be reduced, but the airline source said the main action at hand involved recouping the money Bahamasair paid to Shell that it should not have paid.
In an earlier interview with the Journal, Shell's attorney, Campbell Cleare, said that Shell would probably have been willing to reduce the cost per gallon of its gasoline to the airline by one or two cents. But he said at the time that Bahamasair was demanding as much as a 10 cents per gallon reduction, which would result in a loss to Shell of over $1 million per year.
Mr. Clear told the Bahama Journal then that, "This is not price gouging. The prices are reasonable. Shell deserves to make a reasonable profit. There's absolutely no other carrier that's complaining. Bahamasair is trying to squeeze Shell into an unfair position."
Bahamasair officials declined to go on the record late last week regarding their planned action before the courts.
The board has been taking a number of measures geared at saving the cash-strapped flag carrier millions of dollars. The battle against Shell is seen as one avenue for helping to trim expenditure and ease Bahamasair's burden on the taxpayers' purse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)