EDITORIAL
The question of bail is one that has been engaging practically everyone’s attention these days, especially with the recent spate of crime being seen in this country. In more than one of those cases, it was reported that the perpetrators were persons who were either known to law enforcement already as suspects in other cases, or they are known to the courts as they have made appearances there already and been granted bail.
So the question then that has been on the lips of many people, is how are these persons allowed to commit these crimes, go up to prison for a few months, then make an application for bail, be successful and come back out on our streets to continue to terrorise the public? Yes, terrorise us the public, because they are now so brazen in their actions and seemingly have little regard for human life, that they have no problem shooting someone on Spring Garden Highway at the conclusion of Kadooment or in a crowded mall in the middle of the day.
Yesterday while leading off the debate in the Senate Chamber on the Bail (Amendment) Bill, Leader of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Dr. Jerome Walcott noted that in the case of the murder accused in the relation to the shooting at Sheraton Mall, he is already on bail for murder and suspected of another murder. Mr. Walcott spoke also of another young man who was remanded to Dodds in 2011 on a murder charge, came out on bail and was charged in 2014 with another murder, and yet again he was released on bail earlier this year. Now while we appreciate that a person is innocent until proven guilty, one has to wonder how a person could be charged with murder twice and be given bail in both instances.
We feel therefore that it is indeed fair for Barbadians to ask what the court system is thinking when they let these seemingly hardened criminals back on our streets. One has to ask too if they have truly done their due diligence in respect of these individuals, taking into consideration the character, existing bad acts, associations and community ties of the offender. Indeed, there is a case for bail to be revoked entirely and not considered again for 18 to 24 months, where a person has been granted bail, especially for a serious offence such as murder or a firearm related crime, and they are charged with another such offence.
Now that brings us now to the 24-month restriction on the granting of bail for those charged with serious offences provided for in the amendment to the Bail Act. While we understand the rationale behind that provision and the goal of the legislators given the number of persons on bail who are reoffending, we also appreciate the position of defence attorneys, who feel that it in essence goes against a person’s right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
Added to that the argument is that the 24-month restriction can only truly work if the wheels of justice in this country start to move faster than they currently do. The fact is, there is a serious backlog in our court system, with several cases being on the docket for well over five years. While Government has agreed to put five more judges in place to reduce the backlog, in an environment where there are in excess of 1000 matters on indictment awaiting trial, there must be a concomitant effort being made to ensure that any new cases being filed are also being moved through the judicial system with alacrity. But, certainly not at the expense of fairness.
The onus on the justice system going forward is, if indeed the belief is that a person is innocent until proven guilty, to ensure that each and every accused is guaranteed to have their trial conducted in a timely fashion – that way we ensure that justice is truly served.