Dear Editor,
I read and listened with great care to the pronouncements by David Ramnarine DSM, Commissioner of Police acting on the vexed question of granting of bail. He has a right to be perturbed over the present system of granting bail by the Courts when he has in his possession credible evidence where bail that should have been denied was instead granted to at least twenty recidivists so far this year. He was bold enough to make his views known publicly. A few persons including some in the legal profession will disagree with him, but that is the nature of the Acting Top Cop- he will speak out about wrongdoings. He who feels it knows it.
Peter Hugh, attorney- at-law in a long letter to the editor of Stabroek News, October 26, 2016 under the caption `Bail is usually granted as judiciary has no option but to protect citizens from undue delay in cases’ shared some different views than those presently at the apex of management of the GPF. He argued that all citizens are guaranteed a trial within a reasonable time. He posited that the reason many trials are delayed is due to the unavailability of witnesses which often leads to adjournment. He blamed the police for not being efficient enough to ensure that witnesses attend court and he concluded that is why we are in the position we find ourselves in.
The issues in relation to bail are many, they defy any one-shot solution. In another letter to the editor I will go into greater details but in the interim let me state the following. Some persons including attorneys-at-law also contribute to the present legal morass that exists as it relates to bail. There are a number of times when attorneys-at-law bite out more than they can chew. They take on clients fully well aware that they cannot be simultaneously at two or three Courts in various jurisdictions to properly represent the interest of their clients. Hence, they request adjournments which are readily granted. This type of behaviour is also contributing to the backlog of cases and long overdue trials. It must be highlighted. There are also junior Magistrates who are not inclined to try matters even though witnesses are present on several occasions. I can vividly recall that as an Assistant Commissioner of Police l attended Court as a witness in a single case no less than twenty times before I was given the opportunity to go into the witness box and testify. Perhaps, the paradigm has shifted since my retirement from the GPF. Please do not put all the blame squarely on the broad shoulders of the police, others are equally guilty.
Over four decades ago while undergoing my recruit training at the Police Training School, Eve Leary the instructor in discussing bail with our course made five main points to be considered when granting bail. The points remained indelible in my mind. Later in my policing career I found them to be very useful when dealing with bail, particularly in my decision making process as a station sergeant, a prosecutor, a sub- divisional officer and police divisional commander. Here are the main points to be considered when granting bail told to me as a police recruit. (1) Nature and gravity of the charge. (2) Weight of evidence. (3) Status of the accused. (4) Will the accused/defendant attend trial? (5) Will the granting of bail defeat the end of justice?
Please permit me to humbly suggest from a layman’s point of view that those empowered to grant bail can be guided by the five elements alluded to in the preceding paragraph, in addition to the constitution and their consciousness of the crime environment. This will make the issue of bail less contentious than it is now.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Conway
Assistant Commissioner of Police
(Ret’d)