Public supports Turnquest's comments on judiciary
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas
EVERYONE in authority has been creeping around on cats paws evading a subject that is agitating Bahamians. Despite escalating crime, career criminals are being released on bail by the courts - many of them contributing to the rising crime figures by retaliatory murders.
Finally, National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest had the guts to call a spade a spade. Speaking at a West Nassau Rotary meeting on Thursday, Mr Turnquest said, while not wanting to encroach on the independence of the judicial system, it was his opinion that some judges were far too "liberal" when it came to granting bail to career criminals and those accused of serious offences. He believed that this practice contributed "greatly" to the country's escalating crime problem. He is correct in this belief and he has the support of both the police and the public.
How can any government control a crime situation when as quickly as an accused person with a violent criminal record is taken before the courts he is given bail and returned to the streets looking for trouble -- and, in some cases, the elimination of witnesses who might testify against him.
Pushed under questioning about bail by a Tribune reporter, Mr Turnquest was provoked into uttering a statement that he later regretted. "Liberally they have administered that -- it concerns me greatly -- if we had a system as they do in New York, where judges are elected, many of them would have been chased out of town."
Although he retracted these words, Bahamians would not have done so -- they would have agreed with him.
We also agree with Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett that these particular words were "unfortunate."
"I'm always concerned," said Sir Michael, "when people attack the judiciary because persons have to be careful in what they say, so as not to undermine the public confidence in those of us who serve in judicial office."
We also agree with this statement, but only in so far as the judiciary understands that it too has to be responsible in its judgments to protect a community in crisis. We agree with the community that many judicial officers have failed them. The courts are not responsible for the country's crime -- there are many causes going back many years --however, no one can deny that there are times when the courts have been part of the problem. It is true that the judiciary should not be criticised, but on the other hand they should be careful not to give legitimate cause for criticism. The legal fraternity should certainly understand that responsibility is not one-sided.
However, what is most unfortunate in all of this is that a serious matter has become political. This certainly does not help.
In criticising Mr Turnquest in Friday's Tribune the PLP statement said: "By its own yardstick, the FNM has compromised the independence of the judiciary by failing in the past two years to review judicial salaries as is required by the Judges Remuneration and Pensions Act."
Is the PLP perchance insinuating that until judges' salaries are raised they are not going to perform satisfactorily? If so, this statement is the highest insult that can be made to the Bench.
What is interesting is that when the PLP was the government, its attorney general and minister of legal affairs was making the same complaint as Mr Turnquest.
This is what Minister of Legal Affairs Allyson Maynard Gibson in her fight for "swift justice" had to say on May 19, 2006:
"Today I reiterate that the Swift Justice initiative, the assurance that offenders and would be offenders will be swiftly caught, swiftly tried and swiftly punished, will greatly contribute to breaking the back of crime and the fear of crime.
"Law-abiding people in The Bahamas have every right to expect that they will be safe in their homes and as they go from place to place on our streets."
And then she said: "The Commissioner of Police has already indicated his concern about the disturbing trend of serious offences being committed while people are out on bail.
"In conversations with Magistrates, those before whom most Bail applications are made, they said they are often shocked to see how many people whose request for bail was denied by them (Magistrates) are back before them requesting bail for another offence committed while out on bail. These people had gone to the Supreme Court and been granted bail."
Here we have lower courts pointing the finger of blame at a higher court. We don't recall hearing at that time that Mrs Gibson was undermining the court system by her revelations. Why now that the tables of government have been turned?
Mrs Gibson then gave examples of persons on bail who had gone on to commit other crimes while awaiting their day in court. She also shared statistics on crimes using firearms.
As a result she proposed an amendment to the Criminal Law Miscellaneous (Amendment) Bill, 2006, to take care of the magistrates' complaints against Supreme Court judges. She proposed that there be a "new section 8A to provide for a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal by the prosecution or a person (accused or convicted), as the case may be where bail has been granted or refused to that person by the Supreme Court or where an application by the prosecution to revoke bail has been denied.
"This right of appeal by the prosecution," she said, "is particularly important as statistics have shown that persons, while on bail take not only the opportunity to abscond but more importantly to commit further crimes. The police have indicated that persons out on bail sometimes interfere with witnesses either by themselves or through their acquaintances."
This was the opinion of the PLP when it was the government. This is also the position of the Ingraham government. The difference is that Mr Turnquest had the temerity to express the problem in blunt terms on Thursday.
Prime Minister Ingraham will now address the issue in a state broadcast on Monday, October 3.
September 26, 2011
tribune242 editorial