Blake Strachan v The Director of Public Prosecutions

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Grant-Thompson, J
• Judgment Date: 24 January 2024
• Docket Number: 2023 CRI/bal/00229
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)

BETWEEN

Blake Strachan

Applicant

and

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

BEFORE:

The Honourable Madam Senior Justice Mrs. Cheryl Grant-Thompson

2023 CRI/bal/00229

IN THE SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Bail — Bail Act — Application for Bail — Bahamian — Ties to Community — Whether applicant is a fit and proper candidate for bail

APPEARANCES:

Pro Se- Counsel for the Applicant

Ms. Karine McVean along with Mr. Rasheid Edgecombe- The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

BAIL JUDGMENT

Grant-Thompson, J

1 The Applicant, Blake Strachan (born on the 8 ^th day of April A.D. 1999) now twenty-four (24) years of age, seeks bail in relation to the charge of Murder (2 count) contrary to Section 291(1)(B) of the Penal Code, Chapter 84.

2 The Applicant's application for bail was made by way of the Bail Management System dated the 21 ^st of September, 2023, which stated that:

• a. The Applicant is a citizen of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas;

• b. The Applicant presently resides at Lewis Street, Nassau Bahamas;

• c. The Applicant is charged with the offence of Murder (2 counts);

• d. The Applicant was refused bail by Her Worship Magistrate Mrs. Joyann Ferguson (as she then was) sitting at the Magistrates' Court #9, on the 27 ^th of July, 2023; and

• e. The Applicant has two (2) persons willing to act as suretors for him.

3 The Respondent objected to the grant of bail by Affidavit in Response of Vashti Bridgewater filed on the 8 ^th of November 2023, citing inter alia, that;

• a. The Applicant Blake Strachan (D.O.B. 04/08/99) is seeking bail in relation to the offence of Murder (2 count) contrary to Section 291(1)(B) of the Penal Code, Chapter 84;

• b. The offence was alleged to have occurred sometime between Tuesday the 11 ^th of April, 2023, and Friday the 14 ^th of April, 2023. The particulars are that the Applicant murdered Ms. Allison Thompson and Ms. Trevonika Thompson on the alleged date;

• c. The Respondent verily believes that there are substantial grounds for believing that the Applicant is not of good character. According to the Royal Bahamas Police Force Criminal Records Antecedent Form, dated the 13 ^th of November, 2023, the Applicant has previous convictions of Vagrancy (19/11/18), Stealing (13/08/18), Armed Robbery and Assault with Intent to Commit Rape (04/02/19). The Applicant also has a Warrant of Arrest for Possession of Dangerous Drugs (15/12/17) and Possession of Dangerous Drugs with Intent to Supply (13/06/18). In addition to the previous convictions and the Warrant of Arrest, the Applicant also has a matter namely: Murder (2 counts) (27/07/23) for which the VBI was served;

• d. The Respondent avers that should the Applicant be granted bail, he may likely commit an offence while on bail. However, although the Applicant is presumed innocent, the Respondent verily believes that the noted convictions provide a barometer for the likelihood of the Applicant to commit other offences while on bail;

• e. There has been no unreasonable delay with respect to this matter as it is alleged that this offence occurred sometime between the 11 ^th and the 14 ^th of April, 2023. The Applicant was arrested on the 14 ^th of April 2023, and subsequently charged for the aforementioned offence. The Voluntary Bill of Indictment with respect to this matter has been served on the 27 ^th of July, 2023. The trial date of this matter is scheduled for the 12 ^th of May, 2025;

• f. The Respondent verily believes that the evidence against the Applicant is cogent and there are substantial grounds for believing that the evidence against the Applicant raises a reasonable suspicion of the commission of the offence such as to justify the deprivation of liberty by arrest, charge and detention;

• g. Having regard to the cogency of the evidence as well as the nature and seriousness of the offence coupled with the severity of the penalties attached to each murder count, should the Applicant be released on bail, there is sufficient incentive for the Applicant to interfere with witnesses likely to give evidence. The Applicant also lives in the same area as the murder victim's family and he is the boyfriend of Ms. Allison Thompson (one of the deceased);

• h. Also due to the nature and seriousness of the offence coupled with the severity of the penalties attached to each murder count, it is probable that the Applicant will abscond and not return for his trial in the event that he is released on bail;

• i. The Respondent ask this Honourable Court to take Judicial Notice of the notorious facts such as the high rate of murder in the community and the growing culture of vigilantism;

• j. The Respondent also ask this Honourable Court to take Judicial Notice of the number of Applicants charged with serious offences who when released on bail were themselves murdered. Hence this Applicant whose identity was not hidden during the commission of this alleged offence and known to the victim's family should be kept in custody for his own safety;

• k. According to the Situation Room of the Central Detective Unit, Royal Bahamas Police Force, between the 14 ^th of January, 2022 and 17 ^th of December, 2022, a total of twenty-two (22) individuals outfitted with an electronic monitoring device were murdered;

• l. There is nothing peculiar about the Applicant's detention which suggest the same is unjustified or unfair at this time; and

• m. The Respondent verily believes that the Applicant will be tried within a reasonable time, the evidence against the Applicant is cogent, and the Applicant is not a man of good character. Further there are no conditions that can be imposed that will eliminate or diminish the risk of the Applicant interfering with witnesses, obstructing the course of justice in relation to himself or any other person, as well as committing further offences or absconding.

4 The Crown has laid before the Court a myriad of reasons why they believe this Applicant is not a fit and proper candidate for bail. The primary reasons are the cogency of the evidence against him in this matter and also that there no conditions available to the court to ensure the Applicant does not abscond. The Crown also requested that bail be denied for his own safety and due to there being nothing peculiar relative to his present circumstances.

THE APPLICABLE LAW

5 The Applicant is presumed to be innocent of the charges contained in the Indictment. In this regard Article 20(2)(a) of The Constitution of The Bahamas obtain and states:

“ 20.(2) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence – (a) shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty

6 Furthermore, Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of personal liberty, save upon reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence. Although personal liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution the law authorizes the taking away of that personal liberty upon reasonable suspicion of a person having committed a crime.

7 Parliament has set general standards for the Court's consideration when deciding the issue of bail. So far as is applicable in the instant case the Bail Act 2011 amendment provides:

“ 3. Amendment of section 4 of the principal Act.

Subsections (2) and (3) of section 4 of the Bail Act are repealed and replaced as follows-

“ (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other law any person charged with an offence mentioned in Part C of the First Schedule, shall not be granted bail unless the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal is satisfied that the person charged-

• (a) has not been tried within a reasonable time;

• (b) is unlikely to be tried within a reasonable time; or

• (c) should be granted bail having regard to all the relevant factors including those specified in Part A of the First Schedule and subsection (2B.), and where the court makes an order for the release, on bail, of that person it shall include in the record a written statement giving the reasons for the order of the release on bail.

(2B) For the purpose of subsection (2)(c), in deciding whether or not to grant bail to a person charged with an offence mentioned in Part C of the First Schedule, the character or antecedents of the person charged, the need to protect the safety of the victim or victims of the alleged offence, are to be primary considerations .

PART A

In considering whether to grant bail to a defendant, the court shall have regard to the following factors-

• (a) whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail, would-

  • (i) fail to surrender to custody or appear at his trial;

  • (ii) commit an offence while on bail; or

  • (iii) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person;

• (b) whether the defendant should be kept in custody for his own protection or, where he is a child or young person, for his own welfare;

• (c) whether he is in custody in pursuance of the sentence of a Court or any authority acting under the Defence Act;

• (d) whether there is sufficient information for the purpose of taking the decisions required by this Part or otherwise by this Act;

• (e) whether having been released on bail in or in connection with the proceedings for the offence, he is arrested pursuant to section 12;

• (f) whether having been released on bail previously, he is charged subsequently either with an offence similar to that in respect of which he was so released or with an offence which is punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year;

• (g) the nature and seriousness of the offence and the nature and strength of the evidence against the defendant”

TRIAL WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME

8 Section 3(2)(A)(a) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 2011 (the Act) states:

“ 2(A) For the purpose of subsection (2)(a) and (b)—

(a)...