Bahamas: 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

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

Bahamas Blog International

The Bahamas police are doing their job, but the Bahamian courts are soft on law breakers

Tough laws promised to keep criminals in prison

tribune242 editorial

Nassau, The Bahamas



AN EXASPERATED Police Commissioner yesterday called for stiffer penalties for law breakers.

He said that criminals were not taking the law seriously because punishments were too light. In other words criminals were just playing a catch-me-if-you can game with the police, while wreaking vengeance on society.

The Commissioner was asked by the press whether the police were doing enough to stop the bloodshed -- which with 100 murders made Bahamian history over the weekend. As we wrote this column last night a report flashed across our screen that two more persons- a man and a woman- had just been shot in Nassau Village. They were taken to hospital - the man in serious condition, the woman stable.

One could almost see the Commissioner biting his tongue at yesterday's conference as he tried to gingerly skirt the reporter's question.

He said police officers were arresting the suspects, but after a person was charged it was out of their hands and up to the courts. He said he did not want to speak on the issue in too much detail.

He might not want to elaborate on what is a sore point in police ranks, but we shall do it for him.

The answer simply put is: The police are doing their job, but the courts are not.

Let's look at a five-day period to give our readers some idea of what is happening.

Between July 12 and 17th this year 39 prisoners were released from HM Prison by the courts.

Of this number 22 of them were in prison on remand. The courts gave them bail and released them.

Of these, six were charged with murder and at least three of them went before the magistrate's court with a well established criminal record.

Also among the 22 released onto the streets within a five-day period were persons charged with attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, armed robbery, rape, housebreaking, possession of firearms and drugs, causing grievous harm, fraud and forgery. Many of them have prison records, most of them for violence. Four of them were fitted with electronic monitoring devices.

Examining their records it is obvious that they have been sent back into society without any hope of finding a job or earning an honest crust of bread to keep them alive until their court date. And so what do they do?

We leave it to our readers to answer that question. It is easy to connect the dots and understand what is happening in the country. Commissioner Greenslade has already connected the dots, but does not want to talk about the picture they present -- at least not in public.

In an England gone soft on law breakers, a sudden outbreak, mainly by youth, of rioting and destruction last month, quickly brought legislators to their senses. Vowing to stop the "slow-motion moral collapse" of his country, Prime Minister David Cameron demanded stiff penalties for law breakers. The courts immediately responded, so much so that the weak-hearted are sniffling that the law is going too far. But Cameron is taking no nonsense. He has vowed to introduce laws to "crack down on lawlessness and promote a responsible society."

He directed his cabinet to look for ways to combat a "broken society" in which "fathers had abdicated responsibility for their children, schools had given up on discipline and crimes had gone unpunished."

The courts' harsh sentences were intended to reflect the authorities' anger at the looting, burning and murder that raged through London and spread to other cities.

For example, a mother who was given a pair of shorts stolen by a rioter was jailed for five months, a student went to prison for six months for stealing a box of bottled water worth about $4, while a man was jailed for four years for posting a message on Facebook to encourage people to start a riot. Courts also remanded defendants in custody until their court hearing.

Mr Cameron was pleased that the courts had sent a tough message by stiff sentences. Across the country courts were working extra hours to deal with the offenders, which moved into the thousands.

Police Commissioner Greenslade wants sanctions tough enough to make persons afraid to carry a gun in this country because they would know that they would be removed from their family and friends for a very long time.

Since the courts don't seem inclined to step up to the plate, when the House of Assembly returns from its summer break on October 5 government plans to introduce a number of new Bills to prevent violent, repeat offenders from getting bail.

"We hope that we will provide some teeth, some additional resource, to keep these criminals behind bars," said National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest.

Some Bahamians are so agitated by the seeming indifference of the courts, that they are now suggesting that maybe there are those in the system who are trying to embarrass the government.

The situation is bad, but we hope that it is not that bad.

September 20, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas: ...a lack of swift justice is a hard pill to swallow

The need for swift justice
thenassauguardian editorial



Is there such a thing as swift justice?

The idea behind swift justice is to capture, prosecute and take immediate action on those found guilty of serious crimes. Once that is done, the trend of thought suggests it would make would-be criminals think twice about their actions.

Swift justice will also go a long way in helping members of the public feel a little safer. Police officers have often complained about having done their part in capturing criminals, but they feel that the system betrays them by giving bail to individuals accused of serious crimes like murder.

They’ve complained that even individuals charged with crimes such as housebreaking or assault are given bail too easily and too quickly.

For police officers who are committed to cleaning up the streets, a lack of swift justice is a hard pill to swallow.

No doubt swift justice would help to clean out the backlog of cases that are currently before the courts. Some believe that once the courts can quickly deal with small matters before them, by handing out swift justice, it would give them more time and effort to concentrate on solving serious matters before the courts.

Why should a petty theft be a matter before the courts for months or even years? If all of the evidence and facts are there to convict, then why hold up the court by putting off the case?

That is where swift justice must prevail.

Of course, in all of this the key element would be having all of the evidence and facts to prosecute a case and get a conviction. While justice must be swift, it must also be just.

There must be no room for doubt or guessing, especially when it comes to serious matters like murder, attempted murder, kidnapping or assault. The evidence must be crystal clear.

Perhaps it is this inability of the system to present credible evidence and facts that forces cases to be pushed back or be held before the courts for an extended period of time.

More work must be done by prosecutors in presenting evidence that would expedite swift justice.

A delay in justice forces the hand of the people to seek their own justice, which leads to more problems.

Because of delayed justice many Bahamians have chosen to attempt to take the law into their own hands, seeking their own justice.

Swift Justice must work in the best interest of all. Victims must feel that the system and the law is there to protect them, not frustrate them.

11/15/2010

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International