Gregory Leon Rolle v Director of Public Prosecutions
| Jurisdiction | Bahamas |
| Judge | Darville Gomez, J |
| Judgment Date | 17 February 2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Bahamas) |
| Docket Number | 2009/CRI/bal/No.00101 |
The Honourable Madam Justice Camille Darville Gomez
2009/CRI/bal/No.00101
IN THE SUPREME COURT
Criminal Division
Mr. Bjorn Ferguson and Ms. Shannon Fernander for the Applicant
Mr. Patrick Sweeting for the Respondent
The Applicant applied for the grant of bail pursuant to section 4 of the Bail Act by way of Summons and supporting Affidavit both filed on the 4 th February, 2022.
The Respondents filed an Affidavit in Response on the 17 th February, 2022.
The Applicant, Gregory Leon Rolle Jr. is charged with Armed Robbery contrary to Section 339(2) of the Penal Code Chapter 84. It is alleged that ‘on Saturday 3 rd January, 2022 while at New Providence being armed with an offensive instrument to wit: a hand gun, did rob Densel Bullard of One Hundred and Forty Dollars ($140.00) cash and a Samsung Galaxy Note 10 valued at One Thousand Two Hundred ($1,200.00) cash the property of Densel Bullard.’
The Applicant has not yet been served with the Voluntary Bill of Indictment.
The Applicant, is a 35 year old male. He stated in his Affidavit that he is freelance landscaper, and is the father of a 9 year old minor female child who is depending on him for financial and emotional support.
The Applicant provided that he was arrested by officers of the Royal Bahamas Police Force on the 26 th January, 2022 and arraigned before Magistrate's Court No. 5 on the 1 st February, 2022.
The Applicant in his Affidavit, at paragraph 13 indicated that he has no pending matters before the courts nor any previous antecedents and he is of good character.
The Applicant submitted that he is innocent of the charges put before him and is confident that he will be exonerated of the charge. He further submitted that he is not a flight risk, poses no risk to the safety or security of the public, and if granted bail he will abide and comply with all conditions and stipulations imposed, and will not interfere with any of the witnesses named on the Charge Sheet exhibited as “GLR2”.
Counsel for the Applicant made submissions before the Court and assisted with supporting authorities. He submitted that the test for bail is whether the Defendant/Applicant will appear for his trial which was pronounced in Hurnam v The State Privy Council Appeal No. 53 of 2004. He also pointed out the Bahamian case of Jonathan Armbrister v The Attorney General SCCrApp. No. 45 of 2011 which also discussed the probability of a Defendant appearing for trial.
Counsel for the Applicant averred that the Applicant has an Alibi defence.
The Respondent's Affidavit exhibited an Antecedent Form showing previous convictions and pending criminal charges against the Applicant. In response his Counsel pointed out that the conviction for dangerous drugs which occurred over sixteen years ago was spent (it was committed in 2005).
The Applicant had previous convictions for: (i) assault with a deadly weapon which occurred in 2018 and (ii) assault with a dangerous instrument which occurred in 2021. In the former case, the Applicant was fined $500 or nine (9) months in prison and an order to compensate the virtual complainant in the sum of $750 or three (3) months imprisonment. In the latter case, the Applicant was fined $200 or one (1) month imprisonment and was ordered to enter a bond to keep the peace for one (1) year.
The Antecedent's Form also referred to the following pending offences which the Applicant had been charged:
-
(i) Armed Robbery — 17 th July, 2008
-
(ii) Armed Robbery — 10 th June, 2011
-
(iii) Assault — 29 th September, 2021
Counsel for the Applicant pointed out that the Applicant had not been served with any VBI or documentation to appear before the Court on the listed pending matters and further, that given the date of those alleged offences (in particular the ones dating back to 2008 and 2011) that the Applicant's right was being infringed as had not been heard on the alleged charges within a reasonable time. He indicated that the Applicant could apply for a stay of those offences and cited the Bahamian case of Genear McKenzie and Director of Public Prosecutions SCCrRApp No. 124 of 2020.
The Respondent in their Affidavit opposed the application for bail for such reasons I will now summarize.
The Respondent contends that there is cogent evidence linking the Applicant to the offence as the cellphone was tracked to his place of residence. The Respondent then directed the Court to Exhibit “D.T.1” of their Affidavit in Response which is the Report of D/C 4022 Farrington dated 27 th January, 2022.
The Respondent also provided the Court with the Report of Detective Sergeant 3134 Leslie Whyte dated 26 th January, 2022 where an identification parade was conducted and the Applicant was picked out by the complainant in this matter.
Additionally, the Respondent in support of their objection to bail exhibited the Applicant's Criminal Records Antecedent Form which showed the history of offences committed and alleged to have been committed by the Applicant. This was to demonstrate that the Applicant was not of good character which directly rebutted the Applicant's assertion that he was.
Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the offences which the Applicant had convictions for and in particular the assault with a deadly weapon and dangerous instrument were kindred offences to the instant offence of armed robbery and emphasized that the antecedent form is a good enough reason why bail ought to be denied. Additionally, that it was in the best interest of the public that the application for bail be denied.
Counsel for the Respondent responded that the alibi issue raised by Counsel for the Applicant is an issue to be dealt with at the trial and not during the bail application.
The issue to be determined by this Court is whether the Applicant, Gregory Leon Rolle Jr. should be granted bail.
Article 20(1) of the Constitution provides that:
“If any person is charged with a criminal offence, then, unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.”
And at 20(2)(a) that:
“Every person who is charged with a criminal offence — (a) shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty;…”
The abovementioned Article confer to the liberty of persons based on the presumption of innocence. This follows ones right to apply for bail regardless of a pending matter(s) before the Court.
According to the Bail Act, 1994 (Amendment 37 of 2011), Section 4(2) reads:
“Notwithstanding any other provisions 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.”
(2A) For the purposes of subsection 2 (a) and (b) —
(a) Without limiting the extent of a reasonable time, a period of three years from the date of the arrest or detention of the person charged shall be deemed to be a reasonable time;
(b) Delay which is occasioned by the act or the conduct of the accused is to be excluded from any calculation of what is considered a reasonable time.
(2B) For the purpose of subsection (2)(c), in deciding whether or not to...
To continue reading
Request your trial