By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has dismissed a bail application from an HIV-positive man accused of murder and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, upholding a Supreme Court ruling that his release would pose a serious risk to public safety.

The appellant, who requires daily antiretroviral medication, blood work and regular monitoring, argued that continued detention at the Bahamas Department of Correctional Services (BDOCS) jeopardised his health. He claimed the conditions of his confinement were harsh, saying he was forced to use a slop bucket, sleep on a steel bedframe with cardboard and sheets as padding, and had limited bedding. He maintained these conditions worsened his medical issues and interfered with his treatment regimen, which includes the antiretroviral drug Acriptega.

However, the Court of Appeal noted that his HIV diagnosis was disclosed only orally during the bail hearing and was not included in his affidavit, preventing the prosecution and the court from properly examining the claim. A BDOCS medical report later obtained during the appeal confirmed the appellant’s medical conditions — HIV, a seizure disorder and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease — were being actively managed.

The report said: “Inmate [DR] is known to the Medical Department [sic]; he suffers from seizure disorder and a viral illness which he has been placed on Dilantin 300mg and Acriptega one tablet once daily. He has also been treated for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Follow-up for these conditions can be done at the Bahamas Department of Correctional Services. If deemed necessary by the attending physician, referrals can be made to Princess Margaret Hospital or Ministry of Health Clinic on Rosetta Street.”

The appellant also argued that he had no prior convictions and that detention would hinder his ability to prepare his defence and support his family. Court records contradicted this, listing multiple convictions — housebreaking, stealing, attempted housebreaking, assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, receiving stolen property and threats of death. He also had two outstanding warrants, which prosecutors said increased the risk of flight.

His legal team advanced two further grounds, claiming the Supreme Court judge had not allowed him a proper opportunity to address his criminal history and ongoing matters. The Court of Appeal rejected this, noting the Bail Act required the judge to consider those records and that the appellant failed in his duty of full and frank disclosure by omitting them from his affidavit.

The appellant also asserted he “did not feel” he received a fair hearing. The Court of Appeal said a subjective feeling of unfairness, without supporting evidence, does not amount to a constitutional breach. A review of the ruling showed the judge considered all relevant material, heard submissions from both sides and provided detailed written reasons.

Justice Neil Brathwaite had previously determined the appellant was not a fit and proper candidate for bail and denied the application.

The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, concluding the Supreme Court properly balanced the appellant’s constitutional right to liberty with the need to protect public safety. The judges said the lower court correctly applied the Bail Act, including provisions governing serious offences, and fairly assessed his criminal history, outstanding matters and credibility.

“For the reasons set out above, none of the grounds advanced by the Appellant has any substance,” the appellate court said. “The learned Judge applied the correct legal principles, considered all relevant matters, disregarded irrelevant ones and arrived at conclusions that were fully open to him on the evidence.”