By EARYEL BOWLEG

Tribune Staff Reporter

ebowleg@tribunemedia.net

DEFENCE lawyers said the amendments to the Bail Act Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis announced in the House of Assembly yesterday in response to the soaring murder rate will not significantly change the status quo or affect Supreme Court judges’ discretion to grant people bail. 

Mr Davis said the amendment would ensure bail is automatically revoked for people who violate their bail conditions.

His announcement came less than two weeks after Attorney General Ryan Pinder told reporters the Bail Act did not need to be amended. 

“There’s adequate protection and adequate ability for the judiciary to deny bail in certain instances,” Mr Pinder told reporters earlier this year. 

Magistrates can currently punish people who violate their bail conditions by fining them, as they often do, even when those people are accused of serious crimes such as murder. The amendment would remove this option and force magistrates to remand the accused.

However, lawyers say this may merely delay bail grants because it won’t stop accused people from applying to the Supreme Court, where the judges can use their discretion to release them.

“The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to admit persons to bail derives from its common law jurisdiction, and since its power was not given by Parliament, it cannot be taken away by Parliament,” attorney David Cash said yesterday. “When it comes to committing offences whilst on bail, this must mean convictions and not mere charges as the presumption of innocence must apply to each new charge.”

Debate about bail always intensifies during high murder periods such as the current one; 17 people have been murdered in 2024.

Ministry of National Security consultant Carlos Reid said last year that through November, 42 per cent of murder victims were men on bail for serious crimes. The issue has vexed successive police commissioners and stumped legislators, but judges have repeatedly noted that in a constitutional system where people are presumed innocent, there is no prohibition on bail.

Attorney Christina Galanos told The Tribune yesterday that the legislature cannot amend judges’ unfettered right to grant bail. She noted that the significant backlog of cases increases the likelihood that people will get bail.

“It’s not for politicians to tell judges to decide how or what manner to exercise their judicial discretion,” she said.

 “In order for it to be determined that someone commits an offence while on bail, a jury has to come back and say that, because under our constitution, you’re innocent until proven guilty.

 “Where we are with the backlog, there are some cases where alleged offences were committed all the way back in 2015, 2014, and 2013. We haven’t heard those cases yet.

 “As long as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is in play, you cannot get a court to establish that someone committed an offence while on bail until you have a trial and good luck making that happen within the next three, four, five, or even six years. It sounds good. It sounds like something that is like a talking point, but really and truly, it makes no sense.”

 Attorney Romona Farquharson Seymour similarly noted that being charged does not mean guilty.

 “The police are saying, I suspect this person, I believe that we have sufficient evidence that they have committed the offence, but again, a jury of your peers, depending on the charge, must make that decision,” she said.

 “We have to be very careful that we’re not having some sort of knee-jerk reaction to the increase in crime.

 “The court should look at every circumstance. Every case is unique.”

 A representative of the Bahamas Bar Association said the organisation will call a press conference to respond to the proposed amendments.