Although the Bail (Amendment) Bill 2015 has been hailed as a positive step in the legislative pursuit to stem murders and violent crime in T&T, acting Police Commissioner Stephen Williams has been warned by the Police Social and Welfare Association that rigorous management and careful monitoring is needed to ensure the provisions are not abused by errant lawmen. In telephone interview yesterday, Williams voiced his support for the bill which seeks to restrict the bail privileges extended to people held with illegal guns.
It was passed in the Senate on Tuesday night after a majority vote, despite three Independent Senators voting against it. Independent Senators Elton Prescott, SC, Helen Drayton and temporary Senator Dr Aysha Edwards, who is acting for Independent Senator Ian Roach, voted against it. The bill, once proclaimed by the President, will become law as it was already passed in the House of Representatives on March 20, after 36 members, including the Opposition bench, voted in favour of it.
The bill required a special majority for passage and has a sunset clause which will expire in August 2016. Williams sought to clarify the conditions as he explained that if a person caught with a gun and had a pending matter, which was listed in the schedule of offences and which was before the court, he/she would not be entitled to bail for 120 days. However, he said if someone was held with a gun which was not being used to commit a crime and did not have pending matters before the court that person would be entitled to bail.
Pressed to say how the amended bill would assist law enforcement officers in the fight to reduce gun-related violence, Williams said: “It can have a positive contribution but the ideal position for the Police Service is that once people are found with (illegal) firearms, they should not be entitled to bail but we are appreciative of the provisions the legislature has passed.” He believes the amended legislation will impact on the daily murders and other violent crimes.
Contacted on the issue, secretary of the Police Social and Welfare Association Insp Michael Seales said the association was particularly concerned with comments from several quarters after the debate. Claiming that “some were a bit startling,” Seales said: “In some other instances they were a bit unwarranted.” He said while the weapon of choice for murders was a gun, it was not simply satisfactory to applaud the bill and say it was a good law.
“We have to take into consideration that a person being held for that 120 days may be an excuse for policemen not submitting their files in a timely manner for the successful prosecution of those matters,” Seales said.
He added: “What the association would want to do immediately is to appeal to and impress upon the Commissioner of Police that rigorous case management and submissions of those files are expeditiously done, with an assured quality presentation of evidence, so that the Police Service can never be accused of being a part of what some have identified as an abuse of process.”
Meanwhile, some criminal law attorneys have expressed outrage and disappointment with the bill, which they claimed was “draconian.” Attorney Criston Williams argued that with the various amendments over the years, an accused right to bail, as enshrined in the constitution, was being eroded. He referred to the passing of the bill as an “attempt to put a plaster over a sore that already exists.”
Stating “it was impossible for a matter to start within 120 days,” Williams explained that due to the backlog which exists in the field of forensic science, it now takes approximately three to four years for guns to be analysed. Suggesting that the authorities should have addressed the problems affecting forensic analysts before tackling the issue of bail, Williams added:
“The Remand Yard facility is already overcrowded and we are going to have a further burden on it as matters can’t be started on time. That in and of itself will create a further backlog in the system.” Stating that between 1994 and 2011, there had been nine amendments to the Bail Act Williams said the Government also had an obligation to locate the source of the illegal guns entering the country and “deal with that.”
...Lawyers want it repealed
The Law Association of T&T (LATT) is calling for the Bail (Amendment) Bill 2015, which was passed in the Senate on Tuesday, to be repealed. In a release yesterday and signed by vice-president Gerry Brooks, the association said even in the face of firearms and firearms-related offences, the association “considers the proposed amendments a disproportionate response.” The measure was presented in the Senate by Attorney General Garvin Nicholas and passed with the required majority votes on Tuesday.
While all the Opposition Senators supported the measure, Independent Senators Helen Drayton, Elton Prescott, SC, and Dr Aysha Edwards (temporary) voted against it. Nicholas said the legislation was one of the measures intended to deal with the crime problem. But the association said it had advised Nicholas “that it does not agree with, nor support the Bail (Amendment) Bill.” It said the measure was intended to restrict the granting of bail to an accused person by not permitting him/her to access the court to hear a bail application for 120 days from the reading of the charge.
“This amounts to a denial of a person’s constitutional rights,” the association added. LATT said it was the responsibility of the executive “to ensure that the criminal justice system is modernised and outfitted to a reasonable standard to deal effectively and efficiently with the scourge of crime.” It added: “The answer does not lie in chipping away incrementally at our constitutional rights and freedoms.”
In the six-paragraph statement, the association said the present system was overburdened and it may take as many as three years for the prosecution to be ready to proceed with trial. It said the stipulated 120 days “has no relation to the time it takes the state to get expert reports and be ready.” The association said, consequently, “all that will be achieved is the pre-trial detention of civilians in violation of the presumption of innocence and the protective constitutional provisions.”
It added: “Given the constitutional guarantees of reasonable bail, coupled with the presumption of innocence and the right to be brought promptly before an appropriate judicial authority (and) even in the face of firearms and firearms related offences, LATT considers the proposed amendments a disproportionate response.”