Jaret Kieran Pinder v Director of Public Prosecutions

CourtSupreme Court (Bahamas)
JudgeForbes. J.
Judgment Date20 June 2023
Docket NumberCASE NO. CRI/BAIL/FP/00023/1999
Jaret Kieran Pinder
Director of Public Prosecutions

The Honorable Mr. Justice Andrew Forbes

CASE NO. CRI/BAIL/FP/00023/1999



Criminal Side


Attorney Mrs. Erica Kemp c/o Director of Public Prosecutions

Attorney Mr. Parko Deal c/o Jaret Pinder

Forbes. J.

The Applicant had initially self-filed an application seeking consideration of the court as to the question of bail thereafter Counsel was appointed and filed a summons dated 7 th March 2023 and an affidavit in support filed on the 18 th April 2023. In which the Applicant notes that he was remanded on the charge of Murder having appeared before Magistrate Laquay Laing sometime on the 8 th February 2023.


The Court also notes that this Applicant avers that he was to be served his Voluntary Bill of Indictment before Magistrate Laing on 5 th May 2023.


That the Applicant further avers that he has no previous convictions nor does he have any pending matters. That he is unemployed. That the Applicant has no previous breaches of bail. That the Applicant avers that the evidence is weak and idled with inconsistencies.


The Applicant further avers that he has been advised by his Attorney that the allegations are serious and carry a serious penalty if convicted. The Applicant then further avers to various aspects of the evidence and suggest it is not as cogent as presented by the Crown. The crown has filed an Affidavit in response on 21 April 2023 sworn by Corporal 771 Anastasia Rolle who avers that she is the liaison Officer in the Officer of Director of Public Prosecutions. That the Applicant Jaret Pinder is charged with murder. That it was further averred that it is Applicant is a flight risk. That exhibited thereto was deportee report which demonstrated that the Applicant had been deported from the United States of America.


That the Respondent's affidavit further that there is cogent evidence as there are exhibited statements of witnesses who positively identify the Applicant as well as suggest that the Applicant made certain admissions which are adverse. Court heard the parties on the 23 rd May 2023 wherein additional questions arose specifically given that there were questions as to the Applicants ability to enter the United States of America undetected. The Respondent and Applicants are invited to file additional material. In Applicant therein filed a Supplemental Affidavit on the 16 th June 2023, in which the Applicant avers that he was never made aware that a wanted poster was ever issued for him. That he avers that the wanted poster was submitted only to Bahamas Weekly.com and not to a wider circulation like the National Broadcasting Network, namely ZNS. That the Applicant further avers that he departed the United States of America (USA) in May 2010. Provided as an exhibit was document from Homeland Security Immigration and Custom Enforcement dated 25 th August 2022. It is noted in the document as follows: that the Applicant left the USA on 31 st May 2010, that you subsequently entered the USA at an unknown sate and unknown place. You were not then admitted or paroled after inspection by an Immigration Officer.”


It is consistent with the Applicants contention that he left the USA in May 2010. He indicated he returned to the USA in 2019. That he made no attempts to evade the Police and that the Responded also filed a Supplemental Affidavit on 25th May 2023 sworn by Anastacia Rolle who speaks to a wanted poster being published in the bahamasweekly.com and attaching the photo. This documents was exhibited. That according to the former employer of the Applicant he would have left his vehicle with the Applicant when he traveled in August 2016. The Respondent further avers that the Applicant has demonstrated the ability to enter another country undetected and that he is unfit for consideration of bail.


The Applicant's Counsel has argued that notwithstanding the allegations, the Applicant has denied the allegations and maintains his innocence. That Counsel for the Applicant notes that notwithstanding the Applicant apparent confession he should still should be admitted to bail. And that the Applicant ought to be given the presumption of innocence as articulated with our Constitution. Counsel cited the cases of Jevon Seymour v. DPP SCCrApp. No. 115 of 2019. Also Hubbard v. Police (1986) 2 NZLR 738, in which that is reported by Counsel to say that when considering whether to grant bail, the test is twofold (i) the Applicant will answer to his bail and appear at his trial and (ii) the public interest is at risk. Counsel for the Applicant also cites Lord Bingham in Hurnam v. The State (Mauritius) (2005) UKPC 49 and the case of Commissioner of Police v. Beneby (1995) BHS J. No. 17 noting the comments of Hall J (as he was at the time) “20.I am surprised that Mrs. Christie objected to bail before the Magistrate on the basic ground that the offence of which the accused are charged is “serious”. That never was and is not now, without more, sufficient reason for the denial of bail notwithstanding the frequency with which prosecutors chant it ritualistically or use it as a pro forma objection to bail. Most offenses before our courts nowadays are serious, and if this were a ground for the refusal of bail, the overwhelming majority of persons before the Court would be remanded in custody until trial.” Counsel then offers much discussion as to the quality of the related evidence. Noting the inconsistencies and the lack of corroboration. Certainly these are matters for the jury and not any issue for this Court to delve into at this point. Counsel then notes the case of Shaquille Culmer v. Regina SCCrApp. & CAIS No 98 of 2020. It should be noted that Counsel did not refer the Court to any specific paragraph within the case. Counsel also references Richard Hepburn and the Attorney General SCCrApp. No. 276 of 2014 and specifically the comments of President of Court Appeal Dame Anita Allen specifically her comments at paragraph 6 thru 8.


The Respondents Submission is that they believe that the Applicant is a flight risk as they believe he has shown the propensity to abscond. The respondent also argued the conditions that the Court could impose would not prevent the Applicant from reoffending and finally the offence is of such a heinous nature that it's an affront to public safety. In this regard the Respondent sought to rely on Stephon Davis v The Director of Public Prosecution 2014/Cri/bail/00069 where the Davis was charged with Murder and two (2) counts of Attempted Murder. He appeared before a Judge of the Supreme Court and was denied bail on the basis that the Davis was a threat to public safety as one of the grounds. On Appeal the Court of Appel in Stephon Davis v. DPP SCCrApp. No. 108 of 2020, Justice of Appeal Isaacs addressed each of these arguments. At paragraph 9 the Court said as follows: 9. On my reading of the appellant's case, it does not appear that he was applying for bail on the basis of undue delay in bringing his case on for trial. On a reading of the Judge's 6 assessment of the respondent's case, the only real reason for their objection to bail being granted to the appellant, was the cogency of the evidence.” The Court unsure why the Crown continues to rely on the comments of the Lower Court which was overturned by the Court of Appeal. The substance of the Respondents submissions are that the Applicant is of such a bad character and has allegedly committed such heinous acts he ought not to be granted bail. The Respondent also relied upon the case of Jonathan Armbrister v. The Attorney General SCCrApp. No. 45 of 2011, specifically the comments made at paragraph 13 by Justice of Appeal John. They also point to the case of Jeremiah Andrews v. DPP SCCrApp. No. 163 of 2019, where Justice of Appeal Evans at paragraph 30 said as follows: These authorities all confirm therefore that the seriousness of the offence, coupled with the strength of the evidence and the likely penalty which is likely to be imposed upon conviction, have always been, and continue to be important considerations in determining whether bail should be granted or not. However, these factors may give rise to an inference that the defendant may abscond. That inference can be weakened by the consideration of other relevant factors disclosed in the evidence. E.g. the applicant's resources, family connections, employment status, good character and absence of antecedents.”


There has been multiple decision by the Court of Appeal of recent vintage and not so recent which has established what criteria a Court ought to consider when the issue of bail is being reviewed. In the Court of Appeal decision of Dennis Mather and the Director of Public...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT