By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A MAN accused of murdering a Bahamas Department of Corrections officer was denied bail by a Supreme Court judge despite claims he would be in danger of retaliation if held at Fox Hill Prison.

The judge ruled that defendant Michael Petty Jr failed to meet the strict criteria for expedited consideration and had not shown evidence that he would be in danger.

Petty is charged with murdering Ashantino Johnson, a BDOCS officer. He sought urgent bail, telling the court through an affidavit that social media chatter and comments from officers had left him afraid for his life.

Petty claimed he had been told the victim was a prison officer and that “a lot of talk” online suggested BDOCS staff might attempt to harm him. He said he believed some officers “may try to harm me in retribution for the death of their colleague,” insisting he did not commit the act. He also pointed to a Facebook screenshot that, in his view, confirmed his fears. In that post, attributed to someone identified as “Da Real Ashley,” the writer said: “Can’t wait to say ‘Welcome to the Bahamas Department of Correctional Services where you will be our number one priority’.”

The judge noted that the post had been included in Petty’s affidavit package but found no evidence that other BDOCS officers shared the sentiment. “The applicant avers that the incident is the subject of much social media comment,” the ruling said, but he provided “without more” any supporting facts to show that officers intended to harm him.

Justice Williams rejected the suggestion outright, writing that the court must recognise the oath sworn by correctional officers to ensure the welfare and protection of all inmates. Officers, he noted, are trained to separate personal feelings from their professional duty, and the applicant had shown no evidence to suggest they would not do so in this case.

The judge also pointed to public comments by Commissioner of Corrections Doan Cleare, published the same day as the hearing, in which Mr Cleare acknowledged the emotional weight of the killing but gave an unambiguous assurance that Petty would be protected. He reminded the public that BDOCS is mandated “to take the worst of the worst” and return them safely to court. He said officers would exercise restraint and “do their job,” even if the circumstances were difficult.

Justice Williams accepted the Commissioner’s assurance, calling it dispositive of Petty’s central claim of potential harm.

The judge then turned to the threshold issue: whether the application should have been considered urgently at all. Under the judiciary’s practice direction, urgent bail applications can be fast-tracked only under narrow circumstances: if the applicant is pregnant, a minor, medically compromised because of age, suffering from a serious existing medical condition, or where prosecutors do not object to bail.

None of these applied to Petty.

The ruling emphasised that even when an urgent application does not qualify on paper, the court still has discretion to hear it. However, with the Commissioner’s assurance in hand and no supporting evidence from the applicant beyond his fears and a lone social media post, Justice Williams found no basis to grant the request.

“In the premises,” the judge wrote, “the applicant’s urgent bail application is refused.”