Jaycee Jeffrey Simmons v The Director of Public Prosecutions
| Jurisdiction | Bahamas |
| Judge | Forbes. J. |
| Judgment Date | 04 October 2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Bahamas) |
| Docket Number | CRI/BAIL/FP/00116/2018 |
The Honorable Mr. Justice Andrew Forbes
CRI/BAIL/FP/00116/2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT
Attorney Mrs. Ashley Carroll c/o Director of Public Prosecutions
Attorney Mr. Demeko Rolle c/o Jaycee Jeffery Simmons
The Applicant has filed an application seeking consideration of the court as to the question of bail and in support of this application filed an Affidavit on the 6 th May 2022.
The Applicant avers that he is a citizen of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas; that he resides in Pinedale Eight Mile Rock, Grand Bahama;
That he was born on 22 rd February 1998, and that he is employed at FPS Construction.
He further avers that he has been charged with one (1) count of Murder and two (2) counts of Attempted Murder;
That he is innocent of the charges and is of the belief that he is being set up.
He states that he has no previous convictions however, the Court will speak to this averment momentarily.
He also states that he is expecting the birth of a child in May 2022.
The Respondent filed an affidavit in response dated 19 th August 2022, and sworn by Sergeant 2169 Prescott Pinder, who avers that he is the Liaison Officer of the Director of Public Prosecutions and that he seeks to rely also on the Affidavit of ASP Nicolas Johnson, which was exhibited.
He avers that the Applicant was charged on the 8 th December, 2021 for one (1) count of Murder and two (2) counts of Attempted Murder, which stemmed from a shooting that happened at Platinum Lounge, Eight Mile Rock on 26 th October 2021 and refers to the Voluntary Bill of Indictment exhibited.
He avers that the evidence against the applicant is cogent, as the applicant was identified by Curtis Missick as the shooter and the statement of Curtis Missick is exhibited.
Officer Pinder further avers that the applicant was seen by his female friend, Denae Munroe leaving his home moments before the shooting occurred, wearing the same clothing the shooter is described as wearing.
That Ms. Munroe also spoke to how enraged the applicant was when he left Platinum Lounge a few minutes before the shooting occurred. The statement of Ms. Munroe is likewise exhibited.
Officer Pinder also noted that the applicant has previous convictions for Causing Harm and exhibited the antecedents of the Applicant.
Officer Pinder avers that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person for bail.
The Applicant's Counsel has argued that notwithstanding the allegations, the Applicant has denied the allegations and maintains his innocence.
In support, Counsel for the Applicant cites the Court of Appeal's decision of Johnathan Armbrister v. The Attorney General SCCrApp. No. 145 of 2011 and referred the Court to paragraph 12 thereof.
Counsel for the Applicant suggested that the statements contained in the Respondent s affidavit are matters which have been untested and are issues left to the Jury.
It was suggested that the eye witness may have cause to invent these events, and should the matter proceed to trial, these are questions for the Jury to wrestle with.
The Court notes that neither the Applicant's Counsel nor Counsel for the Respondent saw it as prudent to provide the Court with written submissions, but rather spoke extemporaneously at the hearing.
It is always advisable for Counsel to provide written submissions and authorities so that there can be no mistake as to the principles Counsel are seeking to rely upon.
The crux of the Respondent's submissions is that, the Applicant is a person of bad character because of previous convictions and possible involvement with gangs and that 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 and the Director of Public Prosecution SCCrApp No. 108 of 2020, where Davis was charged with one (1) count of 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 Davis was a threat to public safety as one of the grounds.
On Appeal, the Court of Appel 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 of Appeal in Davis cited Vasyli v. The Attorney General (2015) 1 BHS.J. No 86, where Allen P said: -
“12. On a true construction of section 4 (2) and paragraph (a) (i) of Part A of the Bail Act, and notwithstanding the 2014 Amendment, I am still of the view that bail may only be denied if the State is able to demonstrate that there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would not surrender to custody or appear for trial. In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for such belief, the court shall also have regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence and the nature and strength of the evidence against an applicant as prescribed in paragraph (g) of Part A.” [Emphasis added]
Taking the Respondent's case at its highest, the Respondent has not provided any evidence to this Court that the Applicant will not attend for his trial.
Furthermore the evidence provided is scant and underwhelming and truly did not assist this Court ir arriving at the decision it was tasked with.
There have been multip e decisions by the Court of Appeal which have established what criteria a Court ought to consider, when the issue of bail is being reviewed.
In the Court of Appeal's decision of Dennis Mather and the Director of Public Prosecution SCCrApp 96 of 2020, the Court of Appeal at paragraph 16 cited a number of cases as the starting point.
“16. The main consideration for a court in a bail application is whether the applicant would appear for his trial. In Attorney General v. Bradley Ferguson, et al SCCrApp. No.'s 57, 106, 108, 116 of 2008, Osadebay, JA observed as follows:
“As stated by Coleridge J in Barronet's case cited earlier, the defendant is not detained in custody because of his guilt, but because there are sufficient probable grounds for the charge against him, so as to make it proper that he should be tried and because the detention is necessary to ensure his appearance at trial.”
17. In Jonathan Armbrister v The Attorney General SCCrApp. No. 145 of 2011, John, JA said as follows:
“12. It has been established for centuries in England that the proper test of whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the defendant will appear to take his trial, and that bail is not to be withheld merely as punishment. The courts have also evolved, over the years, a number of considerations to be taken into account in making the decision, such as the nature of the charge and of the evidence available in support thereof, the likely sanction in case of conviction, the accused's record, if any and the likelihood of interference with witnesses.”
The Applicant faces charges involving one count of Murder and two counts of Attempted Murder. These latter two counts appear to have been omitted from the Affidavit of Officer Pinder. These are offences that have been included in Part C of the First Schedule of the Bail Act Par C States inter alia as follows:
“PART C (Section 4(3) Kidnapping — section 282, Ch. 84; Conspiracy to commit Kidnapping — sections 282 and 89(1), Ch. 84; Murder — section 291, Ch. 84; Conspiracy to commit Murder — sections 291 and 89(1), Ch. 84; Abetment to Murder — sections 86 and 307, Ch. 84; Armed Robbery — section 339(2), Ch. 84; Conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery —...
To continue reading
Request your trial