BAIL (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2016
1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the Bail (Amendment ) Act, 2016.

2. Insertion of new sections 12A and 12B in Ch. 103.
The Bail Act is amended, by the insertion immediately after section 12, of the following new sections 12A and 12B –

“12A. Offence of violating conditions of bail.
Any person who, having been released on bail in criminal proceedings and who breaches any conditions of bail, commits an offence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
12B. Penalty for violating conditions of bail.
(1) An offence under section 12 A is punishable
On summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000.00 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years or to both such fine and term of imprisonment.

EFFECTIVELY... the law as noted makes it “AN OFFENCE TO BREACH A PENALTY BECAUSE YOU BREACHED IT". This is an absurdity. The penalty for breaching any condition set down for bail is inherently and innate in the fact of the ‘bail’ itself.

Constitutionally there is no punishment involved with the decision and exercise of granting bail because, at first instance, it is not an entitled right for any accused person to get bail. It begins as discretion to be exercised by the court. The conditions set down for bail, which is the outcome of the courts’ discretion, do not become law on this simple fact - it only applies to that one individual. Therefore, not being a law, when it is breached, the accused cannot be punished for the breach – only the penalty that was agreed upon should consequential be applied - not any other judicial punishment.

The conditions that are set down by the court do not have the teeth of being laws. It is an understanding undertaken between the court, the guarantor of bail and the accused as to what may or may not happen if the accused does not comply.

If the accused does not comply with the conditions, the court is obliged to carry out what it said it would do in the event of non-compliance - consequently, in the extreme, the court can cancel the bail and have the accused arrested and held in custody until the date of their trial. Or, it can change the conditions for bail.

Constitutional law says a parliament is sovereign; hence, our Parliament has made it 'AN OFFENCE TO BREACH A PENALTY BECAUSE YOU BREACHED IT'. This is an absurdity. It is irrational and beyond logic. The philosopher, Socrates, taught ‘the greatest punishment is where the least of the lesser of the people governs the country’. Should we continue to be governed by them?

Godson 'Nicodemus' Johnson

Yup, clearly nothing but dead gray matter in the first two heads shown in the above photo!

Excuse me but in case you didn't notice... only one of the heads in the picture above is gray... the other is supposedly dyed...

Correction; it is 'AN OFFENCE TO BREACH A PENALTY OF BAIL BECAUSE IT HAS THE TITLE OF PENALTY'.

Why are these people even on bail to begin with?

Murder, armed robbery, assault on a child, and the like should have no provision for bail. Period. Build more prisons, make tent camps on the out islands -- I don't care, but these people have lost the right to remain in a civilised society. So many of these people on bail think nothing of committing more crimes while out - often taking care of any potential witnesses at their own trial.

DillyTree, constitutionally an accused person, in a functioning democracy, is held to be innocent until proven guilty. And therefore, irrespective of the charges as you noted above, one ought not be simple yanked from the ordinary course of living on an account of an accusation.

A person who have not yet been tried for an offence and proven to be guilty - have not "lost the right to remain [free] in a civilised society".

The accused might be supporting a family that relies on them, be it a father or mother, for support. A professional career or need to keep a job or other obligations may be pending.

You should not create a worst social dilemma out of one situation while trying to address another. Hope this answer help to awaken in you the rationality of the need to exercise the discretion of granting bail for accused persons.

Godson 'Nicodemus' Johnson

Of course, you are absolutely correct -- from a purely legal standpoint in a functioning democracy. But with crime escalating out of control and these very same offenders out on bail or wearing ankle monitors are often repeat offenders.

In a society where the good people live in fear, why should the criminals be the ones will all the rights? I think you're seeing frustration with our dire crime situation -- something must change. Drastic measures must be taken.

I'd rather see someone remanded than have to explain to a mother/father/husband/wife/child/etc that they beloved relative was murdered and isn't coming home ever again because someone was on bail who shouldn't have been -- wouldn't you?

This bill is a snare that will capture the wrong prey. The whole purpose of bail violations being na non-criminal offence is based on the premis that one is 'innocent until proven guilty.' So while the bill might be intended to capture and punish individuals who blatantly and purposefully and intentionally violate the terms of their bail and may even commit a crime or even more while on bail. But what about a person who is innocent and gets caught out of his curfew hours, say coming home from work. So he is arrested, taken to court and fined and/or given jail time. Then his trial comes up and he is found "not guilty.' But now he has a criminal record for violating bail conditions for a crime he did not commit in the first instance. So now you must build more jail cells. What about anther instance where someone may be 'set up' to be caught out of his bail restrictions. Then he is given a hefty fine and or jail time. So when his case comes up he is no longer a citizen without prior convictions and so this will bear heavily on his trial. And even if he is charged, the rprobation report at hi sentencing will indicate that he has a prior conviction for bail violation. So care must be taken that a similar situation does not develop like when a young male is killed, the police report says, "he was known to the police, or"he was recently released from prison, or even "the victim was wearing an ankle bracelet."

DillyTree and John, I'm cognizant of the escalated and out of control crime situation in The Bahamas. I am in agreement that pro-action is needed; and not superficial action that makes the crime situation worst for us and the future generations. The government ministers, their department administrators are incompetent and unread as to the philosophy of law and the sociological impact their ill conceived legislation have on the rest of society.

There is an underpinning aspect of the law that must be factored in when proposing a law to address a mischief. Jeremy Bentham is most referable on the the point, he's the authority on utilitarianism. The questions arise as to what are the social utility of the law proposed. What is its utility or does it amount to absurdity.

The course they are leading us on is in fact producing more criminals and crimes rather than reducing them: 'HURT PEOPLE , HURT PEOPLE!'.

As to living in fear and the criminal having all the rights... I feel your concerns. Mussolini came to power with worse criminal situation than any modern country has had to face. But because we would rather be-devil his legacy, we won't learn from what he did to turn Italy around. FOR HEAVEN SAKE, THE MAN GOT THE TRAIN TO RUN ON TIME'... sounds simple??? but this was an impossibility before Mussolini came to lead Italy.

The blame for not getting control of the crime has to do with leadership capabilities. We deserve what we chose.

Lastly, as to your preference to see a person remanded as apart from being afforded the freedom of movement, you and many others who feel this way are in for a BIG SHOCK!!!

The actual effect of the Amendment to the Bail Act frees the guarantor of their obligations, and, resettles the responsibility of bail on the shoulders of the accused. The government by this act to punish the accused for breach of bail conditions has accepted the responsibility for the decision of bail, and, settles any mishap onto the shoulders of the accused.

So effective from the 24th of February, 2016, all persons who stood bail for accused persons before the courts, to date, are no longer personally responsible and liable and cannot be held responsible for the actions of the accused. The Amendment to the Act, in effect, now shoulders the penalty for non-compliance directly onto the shoulders of the accused persons themselves.

The entrenched rule of law that supports what I am saying is the rule against double jeopardy. YOU CANNOT PUNISH/PENALIZE TWICE FOR THE SAME ACT. The courts cannot hold the guarantor for bail responsible for the misconduct of the accused, and at the same time, by this Amendment, hold the accused responsible for his own misconduct.

Like the flawed Urban Renewal Program, the only thing that has two heads is a monster, in other words, the Amendment created a legal monstrosity rather than address the scourge of crime in The Bahamas.

Godson 'Nicodemus' Johnson.

The simple and most common sense thing to do, when a person violates bail is to levy a penalty and/or revoke bail. These draconian measures serve to make a bad situation worse. Revoke the bail and give a speedy trial and stop the window dressing. It will further conjest and slow down the court system and make criminals of persons who would have been innocent in the first instance.