The recent decision of a city magistrate to grant bail to four men, who have been charged with unlawful possession of guns and ammunition, has been criticised by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall SC, who says it sends the wrong message.
The men, Tahj Fraser, Brandon Barker, Antonio Fraser and Keith Cains, appeared before Principal Magistrate Sherdel Isaacs-Marcus at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court on Friday.
Cains, Tahj Fraser and Barker were jointly charged while Antonio Fraser faced two separate charges.
The charge against the trio states that on May 26th, at Brickdam, Georgetown, they had in their possession a .32 Taurus Pistol, while they were not the lawful holders of a firearm licence.
They were also charged with the unlawful possession of two live rounds of ammunition.
Meanwhile, the charge against Antonio Fraser read that on the same date, at Main Street, Georgetown, in the vicinity of Tower Suites Hotel, he had in his possession a .9mm Glock 19 pistol with serial number #FLD 741.
Antonio Fraser is also accused of having a suspected 9 mm round in his possession on the same date and location.
The quartet denied the allegations and were placed on bail of $200,000 each, $100,000 on each charge.
Bail was granted on the condition that they lodge their passports with the court. They are also required to report to the Brickdam Police Station. The matter was adjourned to June 25th.
The police had said that on the day in question, ranks acting on information received went to Main Street, where they contacted an individual, later identified as Antonio Fraser, a driver of D’Urban Street, Lodge.
A search was carried out on his person during which the items were allegedly found.
Later the said morning, the police added that ranks acting on further information went to Brickdam where they saw Cains, Tahj Fraser and Barker. They were seated in motor vehicle, PYY 5049.
Nothing illegal was found in their possession but a search carried out in the vehicle unearthed a .32 Taurus Pistol and ammunition under the driver seat.
In a statement issued on his Facebook page on Saturday, Nandlall said the magistrate’s decision to grant the men bail on their first court appearance has “rightfully” evoked “grave concern and criticism” among members of the public.
“As the executive officer of the state under whose responsibility the Justice Sector falls, I can relate to both the public’s concern and criticism. I can also relate to the negative impact which such a decision may have on the morale of the law enforcement agencies of the state,” Nandlall said.
He suggested that the state many soon have to “resort” to the “extreme” measure of subjecting some of decisions handed down by magistrates to judicial review in the High Court and lodge complaints with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
“To assert that crime is a serious problem in our country, may be putting it mildly. To not recognize that gun related crimes threaten the safety of every citizen would be a forbearance in naivety,” Nandlall said.
He noted that these are among the factors which a court of law ought to take into consideration before bail is granted or refused.
“In order to circumscribe the discretion in respect of the grant of bail in relation to firearm offences, obviously due to their devastating prevalence and the accompanying societal damage, the 9th Parliament of Guyana unanimously enacted an amendment to the Firearms Act, Chapter 16:05, Laws of Guyana in the following terms,” the AG explained.
Unless special reasons are cited or there was prosecution intervention, Nandlall said that no person arrested for “any offence” under Sections 16, 37 and 38 of the law shall be granted bail.
“The term ‘special reasons’ has been judicially interpreted and thereby confined to relate to the ‘offence’ and not the ‘offender.’ Based upon the facts elucidated in the news report, it is impossible to conceive what would have constituted ‘special reasons’, thereby enabling the learned Magistrate to admit these persons to bail,” Nandlall further stated.
If this was the case, Nandlall said it is required to be recorded in writing.
“It is my hope that the statutory prescription was complied with and those ‘special reasons’ were recorded in writing,” the AG said.
