By PAVEL BAILEY

Tribune Staff Reporter

pbailey@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has granted $15,000 bail to a juvenile accused of murder, requiring him to wear an electronic monitoring device.

Justice Andrew Forbes stipulated that the 17-year-old must observe a curfew from 10pm to 5am and report to the Central Police Station in Freeport, where he resides, every Monday and Friday by 7pm. The minor is not allowed to leave Grand Bahama without prior court approval. Non-compliance may result in bail revocation.

He was previously arraigned and remanded to the Bahamas Department of Correctional Services on May 27 before Magistrate Uel Johnson.

The teen claims innocence and has no history of breaching bail conditions.

He assured the court that he did not intend to abscond or interfere with witnesses and was willing to comply with all court-imposed conditions.

The Crown opposed bail, citing an affidavit from Corporal Harris Cash, who outlined what he described as strong evidence. This included the teen’s alleged admission to stabbing the deceased and a corroborating statement from his cousin. The prosecution argued that the strength of this evidence rendered the minor unfit for bail.

Ernie Wallace, the teen’s attorney, argued that under the Bahamian constitution, every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty or until a plea is entered. He said the key consideration in granting bail is whether the accused will appear for trial and whether their release would pose a risk to the public interest.

Acknowledging the gravity of the charge, Mr Wallace maintained that this alone is insufficient grounds to deny bail. He emphasised that his client had no previous bail infractions, no evidence suggested he would interfere with witnesses, and that the teen intends to claim self-defence at trial.

Sean Norvell-Smith, representing the Director of Public Prosecutions, countered that while ensuring the accused’s appearance at trial is paramount, the risk of witness interference must also be weighed.

He noted that the accused was already on bail for another serious offence at the time of the alleged murder, indicating a risk of reoffending.

Justice Forbes concluded that the DPP presented no evidence suggesting the minor would fail to appear for trial. The affidavit contained no indication that the applicant might abscond.

The judge pointed out that the prosecution’s argument focused instead on public safety due to the seriousness of the offence.

He referenced precedents where the right to bail applied, affirming that an accused remains presumed innocent and entitled to bail unless the public interest, such as a flight risk, witness interference, or the likelihood of further offences, justifies detention.

Justice Forbes stressed that the seriousness of the offence, while relevant, is not a sufficient standalone reason to deny bail. He also highlighted that self-defence is an issue to be determined by a jury at trial.

Justice Forbes criticised the handling of the juvenile’s detention, saying:

“The court notes that the police and the magistrate failed to act in the best interest of the applicant and failed to consider the provisions of the Child Protection Act. Chapter 132 of the Statute Laws of the Bahamas.”

He referenced another case in which a 15-year-old was remanded to the adult facility at Fox Hill Prison via a Voluntary Bill of Indictment, potentially violating rights under the Child Protection Act and the Child Rights Convention.

While acknowledging that the prior case involved armed robbery and the current one involved murder, Justice Forbes noted that under Section 112(1)(c)(i) of the Child Protection Act, police and magistrates cannot release juveniles on bail in homicide cases. Therefore, they were not at fault for initially detaining the applicant.

However, authorities failed to assess appropriate placement for the juvenile despite clear legal provisions on where and how minors should be detained.

Bail was granted with one or two sureties. The judge reiterated that the juvenile must not interfere, directly or indirectly, with prosecution witnesses during the ongoing case.