Dominic Stuart v Director of Public Prosecution

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Mr. Justice Jon Isaacs, JA
• Judgment Date: 21 July 2022
• Neutral Citation: BS 2022 CA 106
• Docket Number: SCCrApp No. 77 of 2022
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bahamas)
• Year: 2022

Between

Dominic Stuart

Intended Appellant

and

Director of Public Prosecution

Intended Respondent

Before:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Isaacs, JA

The Honourable Madam Justice Crane-Scott, JA

The Honourable Mr. Justice Jones, JA

SCCrApp No. 77 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Criminal Appeal — Bail Application — Armed Robbery — Kidnapping — Money Laundering — Appeal Against the Refusal of Bail — EOT application — Section 8A(2) of the Bail Act — preliminary objection to the EOT application — Exceptional circumstances that warrant the intervention of the Court

The Intended Appellant was charged with multiple counts of armed robbery, kidnapping and money laundering. He applied for bail and the bail application was heard on 4 May 2022. An oral judgment was given whereby the learned judge refused bail on the 18 May 2022. The Intended Appellant appealed the decision of the learned judge on numerous grounds; however, his appeal was outside of the time prescribed and therefore needed an extension of time (EOT) in which to appeal. The Intended Respondent filed a Preliminary Objection to the EOT application citing that the Applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would warrant the intervention of the Court.

Held: Application dismissed.

The intended respondent made a preliminary objection to the EOT application on the basis that while the Court has the power to entertain such an application, the intended appellant would have to demonstrate that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted the intervention of the Court; and that no such exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated by the intended appellant.

Following Culmer, the intended appellant has not shown any exceptional circumstances for the Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to entertain the EOT application. The explanation provided by him does no more than state when he instructed his lawyer to appeal the Judge's decision; and fails to articulate how the delay was not his fault and was due to circumstances beyond his control. More telling, however, the intended appellant has not personally done all he could do to bring his appeal timeously.

David Cornish v DPP SCCrApp. No. 174 of 2018 mentioned

Deane v Allamby [2016] CCJ 21 (AJ) considered

Lukaszewski v The District Court in Torun, Poland, Pomiechowski v District Court of Legunica 59-220 Poland, Rozanski v Regional Court 3 Penal Department Poland and R (on the application of Halligen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 20 considered

Nixon v DPP and Seymour v DPP SCCrApp. No. 139 of 2019 mentioned

Shaquille Culmer v DPP SCCrApp. No. 141 of 2019 followed

The Queen (on the application of) Adesina & Ors v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 818 applied

APPEARANCES:

Dr. Glendon Rolle, Counsel for the Appellant

Ms. Stephanie Pintard, Counsel for the Respondent

Mr. Justice Jon Isaacs, JA

Judgment delivered by The Honourable

1 The intended appellant seeks to appeal the decision of Madam Justice Guillimina Archer-Minns (“the Judge”) wherein she denied his bail application on 18 May 2022. I refer to him as the “intended appellant” because a person seeking to appeal a decision of a court to either deny bail or grant bail must file their appeal within two days of the pronouncement of the decision: Section 8A(2) of the Bail Act. His Notice of Appeal was filed on 25 May 2022, some five days out of time. Thus, it is necessary for the intended appellant to make an application to the Court for an extension of time within which to appeal the Judge's decision (“EOT application”). He has made an EOT application.

2 The intended respondent made a preliminary objection to the EOT application on the basis that while the Court has the power to entertain such an application, the intended appellant would have to demonstrate that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted the intervention of the Court; and that no such exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated by the intended appellant.

3 In Shaquille Culmer v DPP SCCrApp. No. 141 of 2019, the Court, differently constituted, considered the position of a person whose bail application had been refused and who was seeking to appeal the refusal to grant bail outside of the two day...