Showing posts with label Jon Isaacs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Isaacs. Show all posts

Monday, May 3, 2010

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

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel: I did not break the law

By Candia Dames ~ Guardian News Editor ~ candia@nasguard.com:


Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel yesterday denied that he broke the law in the execution of his duties in the lead-up to the Elizabeth by-election last month.

Bethel sat down with The Nassau Guardian at his Farrington Road office a day after the justices of the Election Court said in a ruling that he violated the law when he removed a voter's name off the register after it had already been closed.

"I gave it everything I had, to be honest with you," he said of the recent Elizabeth registration process. "I always give my work everything I have. I always plunge fully into whatever it is I have to do, always. People who know me would tell you that... I always endeavor to do my best."

In their ruling, which propelled the Progressive Liberal Party's Ryan Pinder to victory, Senior Justices Anita Allen and Jon Isaacs said the Election Court case has once again exposed failures in the Parliamentary Registration Department.

"Again this process has exposed failures, omissions and errors on the part of the parliamentary commissioner and his staff which may, if not corrected, threaten the fairness of the electoral process and ultimately our democracy. It is not an answer to say that the parliamentary commissioner did not have the resources to do what he is mandated by the law to do. No court can accept that as an explanation for disenfranchising a voter," they said.

Bethel's staff includes fewer than 20 people. During election periods, other civil servants are seconded from other departments to assist.

Bethel admitted that his department is challenged in preparing for elections, but he said he has a hardworking staff that is quite capable.

"We made ourselves available to the people in Elizabeth when that election was called," he said. "The vacancy came on January 6. On January 7 we were in the constituency and we stayed there for the entire period until the register was closed. We registered new people; we did transfers, that sort of thing. So we did quite a bit of work, and also we walked the streets trying to determine where people are. So it isn't that we sat down; we actually worked to do our best to make sure we had everything in order."

He admitted that the process was difficult.

"You don't know an election is coming up until after it is called, but immediately after it was called we set out to work to make sure that we had things in order," said Bethel, who oversaw the last three general elections in the country, as well as local government elections and by-elections.

Bethel said if he did in fact make mistakes, he will work to ensure those mistakes will not be repeated. He admitted that some things may need to be done differently.

"I think we've got to go beyond what we did to make sure we have total accuracy in terms of where people live," he said.

Pointing to the various challenges faced by his department, Bethel said, "In terms of citizenship, day after day this is becoming an extremely difficult situation to deal with. In the Passport Office for instance, one of the things that happens is that you wait two, three weeks for a passport. When people come to us they expect to get registered in two or three minutes.

"So, we have got to be extremely careful in terms of getting information and people don't understand how difficult that is. There are so many Bahamians who don't have passports, who don't even have birth certificates, so it becomes extremely difficult but we have been working through this and I think we've done a pretty good job."

Asked to respond to people who believe his resignation may be in order, Bethel, who has a constitutionally protected position, said, "I will go. I will go. I'm sure the time will come when I will go. I'm not sure when that is. It may be today, it may be tomorrow, I don't know. If people are going to be fair, I think people also need to give credit for the work I have done over the years and what I continue to do in terms of giving service to this country. I don't think I've cheated the country in any way."

The Election Court justices were also critical of the parliamentary commissioner in the 2008 Pinewood ruling, saying the case had exposed the most egregious failures in the system.

Bethel admitted yesterday that the timing of the 2007 Boundaries Commission report created substantial challenges for him and his staff.

"In preparation of a new register you tend to start at a period of time when you want to make sure that by the time the old register expires you'll have a new register to replace it," he said.

"And so we started the 2007 register in September 2005. We started early because we wanted to make sure that we were able to register anybody who wanted to register. The thing to bear in mind is that in preparation of a new register you do not issue the [voter's] cards.

"The cards are not issued until the new register actually comes into force and the new register did not come into force until the House was dissolved in 2007. The House was dissolved on April 4, 2007. Now, you know that there was a Boundaries Commission (report). That Boundaries Commission report came into effect on March 26, 2007. On April 3 the register was closed for the new election because the House was dissolved on the 4th. After the Boundaries Commission report came into force, what we had to do is, first and foremost, we had to create a new register because we had to create a register that reflects these new constituencies and new polling divisions. So we had to go through the whole registration system in our computer and build this new register."

He said his staff worked day and night in the one week they had to get the job done.

"When people got their cards — remember we started registration in 2005 — a lot of people found the moment they received their cards that they were not in the right place," he said.

"But there is nothing we could do about it because the system does not allow us to move people after the register is closed, but that is what we had to work with. And I think the public needs to understand, you're talking about almost an impossible situation, and at the same time while we were trying to get these cards corrected and get them out we had to be planning an election in terms of putting a staff together, in terms of finding polling places, making sure all the election materials are in place and also making sure that we have ballots for the election. So it is not just one task you have to do. There are a number of different tasks that you have to do all at the same time."

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said at a press conference Tuesday evening he saw no reason for Bethel to leave his post. Ingraham also pledged that the government will effect reforms in the registration process and indicated that it may also amend the law in this regard.


March 25, 2010

thenassauguardian

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Election Court Bahamas: Court hears that three protest voters did not live in Elizabeth

By Krystel Rolle ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:



The names of three of the five people who voted on protest ballots in favor of Progressive Liberal Party candidate Ryan Pinder on February 16 are not on the Elizabeth register, according to evidence given by Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel yesterday.

Bethel told the Election Court that voters A, D, and F — as they are referred to in court to protect their identities — were registered in neighboring constituencies.

Voters D and F are registered in Yamacraw, while voter A is registered in Fox Hill, according to Bethel, who took the stand for the second day yesterday.

Pinder wants the court to rule that the five protest votes cast in his favor are valid. If at least three of those votes are approved, he would be declared the winner of the election.

During cross-examination by attorney Milton Evans, who represents Free National Movement candidate Dr. Duane Sands, Bethel said the voters were placed on the various registers because of the information provided by them about their addresses.

He said it was not a mistake that they were registered in those constituencies. Rather, Bethel said it was a conscious decision.

He added that before the 2007 boundary change, voter A was in the Elizabeth constituency. However, Bethel said when the boundaries were cut during the run-up to the general election, the voter was transferred to the Fox Hill constituency.

He estimated that the boundary change affected tens of thousands of people.

The parliamentary commissioner also said he would not be surprised if there were other voters holding voter's cards for the wrong constituency.

Senior Justices Anita Allen and Jon Isaacs, who are presiding over the case, asked whether the parliamentary commissioner attempted to clean up the register since the last general election.

Allen noted that more than two years have passed since the general election and wondered whether the parliamentary commissioner would have an obligation to fix the register.

However, Bethel said changes are only made when voters initiate the process. He said when voters move, it is their obligation to notify the Parliamentary Registration Department.

After Bethel left the stand, voters E, C, and F testified briefly.

When questioned by Pinder's lead counsel Philip Brave Davis, voters E and C told the court that the affidavits that they signed were true and correct.

Voter F told the court that she cast her vote for the PLP candidate in the 2007 general election at the Thelma Gibson Primary School. However, she could not recall which constituency she voted in.

She noted that her current voter's card places her in the Yamacraw constituency but she said she moved from Yamacraw Shores in 2006 to Pine Barren Road. She admitted, however, that she never notified the Parliamentary Registration Department about the move and therefore was never transferred to another constituency.

The voter, who did not have her voter's card yesterday, is expected to return today to continue her testimony.

Voter A's husband also testified yesterday.

He told the court that he and his wife have lived on South Barren Road in the Elizabeth constituency since 2006.

He said when his wife received her voter's card in April 2007, she noticed that she was registered in the Fox Hill constituency. The man said when she realized that, she went to the Parliamentary Registration Department to have it changed to Elizabeth. Voter A's husband said his wife eventually got the card corrected and subsequently voted in Elizabeth during the 2007 general election.

Under cross-examination, voter A's husband said he and his wife often visit his mother's house, which is in the Yamacraw constituency. He said sometimes they stay there for as long as a month. He said his mother is a cancer patient and they go there to help her out. He denied that he rents an apartment in the Yamacraw constituency.

Voter's A adopted father also offered similar testimony. He said voter A lives with him and about 45 other people in the Elizabeth constituency. He explained that they run a charity that assists the homeless.

He said both he and voter A met Pinder and Sands while they were campaigning in the days before the by-election.

Returning Officer Jack Thompson also took the stand briefly yesterday.

He confirmed that there were six protest votes — five for Pinder and one for Bahamas Democratic Movement candidate Cassius Stuart.

The Elizabeth by-election ended with Sands receiving 1,501 regular votes and Pinder receiving 1,499 regular votes.

Pinder is exercising his right under Section 69 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which allows a candidate to petition the court to consider the protest votes cast if the margin of victory of his opponent (in this case Sands) is less than the number of his (Pinder's) protest votes.


Tuesday March 16, 2010

thenassauguardian