Hypocritical!
It’s hypocritical!
This is what Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite had to say about those members of the legal fraternity who have publicly spoken out about accused Acting Senior Superintendent of Police, John Mark Annel, being able to secure bail in a matter of hours after being remanded to jail.
Speaking to the media on Wednesday night, Brathwaite said the only way the police officer would have gotten into Court, was because an attorney-at-law made the representation.
“There is nothing wrong with that,” Brathwaite declared.
“It has happened on many occasions. Urgent applications happen on many occasions in this country. So if what you are saying is true, then it is hypocrisy. They all know, like I do, that in fact urgent applications are done to judges in chambers continuously,” Brathwaite added.
On Monday, Annel, a veteran police officer with 37 years’ experience, appeared in the District A Magistrate Court to answer to six charges in relation to the possession of ammunition between August 3 and September 20.
The 56-year-old Kenrick Hutson Drive, Lucas Street, St Philip resident, was granted $150 000 bail in the No 1 Supreme Court on Monday evening, hours after Magistrate Graveney Bannister remanded him to HMP Dodds until October 23.
Yesterday, President of the Barbados BAR Association, Liesel Weekes, issued a press statement which indicated that the highly publicised bail application on behalf of Annel to the High Court, and the public interest it generated, requires an explanation from the Association.
Weekes said the fact that Annel was able to secure a bail application before the High Court on the same day he was charged is permitted by the Bail Act, is proper, and should be the norm rather than the exception.
The statement read that by section 4, of the Bail Act Cap 122A of the laws of Barbados, everyone charged with an offence is entitled to bail. That entitlement is subject to certain other conditions set out in the said Act.
The starting point is the entitlement. Implicit in that entitlement is that a person charged with an offence is entitled to be brought before a Court properly empowered to hear an application for bail, as soon as reasonable after being charged.
Section 5 (4) (d) of the Bail Act states that only a High Court Judge can hear and determine an application for bail made by a person accused of an offence under the Firearms Act. Magistrates are therefore not empowered to grant bail for those offences. Consequently, when a person accused of committing an offence under the Firearms Act is brought before a Magistrate that Magistrate advises the accused that he has no power to grant bail and remands the accused.
She said there is no automatic transfer or scheduling of a bail application before the High Court. Weekes explained that the better course to be taken should be that when the person is charged under the Firearms Act, they should be taken immediately before the High Court to have their Bail Application dealt with instead of the wasted step of
appearing before the Magistrate.
“What can potentially happen is that a person without the resources to apply to the High Court may be on remand immediately for firearms charge without appearing as of right before a court of competent jurisdiction to consider an application for bail.
“This is a situation that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency as it concerns the liberty of the individual and affects their constitutional rights.
“This is a matter that is capable of being resolved easily, either by restoring jurisdiction to the magistrates to hear bail applications for persons charged with firearms offences; or alternatively making it mandatory that the persons once charged, is taken before a High Court Judge instead of a Magistrate,” Weekes said.
(AH)