Lindsay Shiver Terrance Bethel v The Director of Public Prosecutions

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Turner, JA
• Judgment Date: 18 December 2024
• Neutral Citation: BS 2024 CA 175
• Docket Number: SCCrApp. No. 193 of 2024
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bahamas)

Between

Lindsay Shiver Terrance Bethel

Appellants

and

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

BEFORE:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Isaacs, P

The Honourable Mr. Justice Evans, JA

The Honourable Mr. Justice Turner, JA

SCCrApp. No. 193 of 2024

SCCrApp. No. 194 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Criminal appeal — Bail — Revocation of bail — Hearsay evidence in bail applications — Hearsay evidence in bail revocation applications — Meaning of “reside” in imposing bail conditions — Pretrial publicity impacting the administration of justice — Whether an applicant can be denied bailfor their own safety — Whether the accused will abscond or appear for his trial — Whether the judge's exercise of her discretion to revoke bail was unduly harsh and severe — Section 5 of the Bail Act — Part A of the First Schedule of the Bail Act

Held: both appeals are dismissed.

The hearsay evidence which was contained in the affidavits relied on by the DPP below to demonstrate that the appellants had breached their bail conditions was properly received and considered by the Learned Judge.

“Reside” in bail conditions means to stay at that address, it does not mean so long as the address of the applicant is not legally changed, the applicant is permitted to live somewhere else but continue to call the address indicated in the bail bond their legal address and therefore remain in compliance with the residence conditions stipulated by the court.

A court is able to consider the applicant's safety and further, that this issue, if the applicant's life is found to be in danger, is a sufficient basis on its own to deny an applicant bail. There is no legislative prohibition on the scope of the court's consideration. However, the court is required to consider whether any steps may be taken to allay these concerns. While the Learned Judge below was not wrong in considering the safety of Shiver, there is merit in her submission that the court failed to take into consideration the protection order which she benefitted from in the United States.

Bethel not signing in at the Elizabeth Estates Police Station on multiple occasions was a clear breach of his bail conditions, notwithstanding that a new bail bond had not been signed upon the variation of his bail.

The judge previously admonished the appellants not to try the matter in the public arena. As such there was a basis for the conclusion that this issue of pre-trial publicity had the potential to impact the case, and that having regard to the previous warnings, followed by the appearance of the appellants on Good Morning America was an interference with the administration of justice.

A court considering an application for bail, or indeed an application seeking to revoke bail, is able to draw conclusions based on the information placed before the court on the likelihood of an accused person appearing for his trial. The requirement in the Bail Act is for there to be ‘substantial grounds for believing’ that the applicant would not appear. The Learned Judge considered what the court found to be instances of each of the two appellants breaching their bail conditions. In these circumstances, the Learned Judge was entitled to consider these instances of breaches of conditions as being substantial grounds for believing that the appellants would not appear to take their trial.

In relation to the appellant Shiver, after anxious consideration of all the issues raised, this Court is satisfied that the Learned Judge properly exercised her discretion to revoke the appellant's bail, notwithstanding her treatment in respect of the issue of the appellant's personal safety. In relation to the appellant Bethel, after similarly anxious consideration of all the issues raised, this Court is again satisfied that the Learned Judge properly exercised her discretion to revoke the appellant's bail.

Bartholomew Pinder v The Queen SCCrApp. No. 94 of 2020 considered

Dentawn Grant v. The Director of Public Prosecutions SCCrApp. No. 69 of 2022 considered

Huey Gowdie v R [2012] JMCA Crim 56 considered

Latario Davis v DPP SCCrApp. & CAIS No. 147 of 2019 considered

Parry v Derbyshire Dales District Council [2006] All ER (D) 70 (May) mentioned

Rex (Worcestershire County Council) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2023] 1 WLR 2790 mentioned

The Attorney General and Bradley Ferguson et al SCCrApp. Nos. 57, 106, 108 and 116 of 2008 mentioned

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Damien Gomez, KC and Mr. Owen Wells, Counsel for the Appellant Shiver

Mr. Ian Cargill, Counsel for the Appellant Bethel

Ms. Cordell Frazier, DPP and Mr. Rashied Edgecombe, Counsel for the Respondent

Turner, JA

Judgment delivered by The Honourable Mr. Justice

1 . This is an appeal against the decision of Grant-Thompson Snr. J, dated 25 October 2024, revoking the appellants bail and remanding them into custody.

2 . The appellants are jointly charged with the offence of Conspiracy to Commit Murder (1 count) contrary to sections 89(1) and 291 of the Penal Code, Chapter 84.

3 . The appellants were initially granted bail in the Supreme Court on 9August 2023 (Shiver) and 1 August 2023 (Bethel).

4 . In relation to Shiver, the initial conditions of her bail, as recorded in paragraph one of the decision of Grant-Thompson Snr. J. revoking her bail, were as follows:

“ 1 The Court originally granted Mrs. Shiver bail in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) with two (2) suretors. In respect to Mrs. Shivers original bail, the following strict conditions were imposed:

a. That the Applicant is to be fitted with an Electronic Monitoring Device and must agree to abide by the 2010 Regulations for the use of such a device and report to the Police Station every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday before 6:00pm;

b. That the Applicant keep a curfew at her residence, Atlantic Drive Westridge, New Providence, The Bahamas, from 8:00pm to 6:00pm daily;

c. That the Applicant is not to come within 100ft of the Virtual Complainant or interfere with any of the prosecution witnesses; and

d. That the Applicant surrender her travel documents to the Court and cannot travel without the express permission of the Court.”

5 . Those conditions were later varied, as recorded in the decision, as follows:

“ 2. On the 21st of December, 2023, Mrs. Lindsay Shiver requested and received a bail variation implementing the following conditions;

a. The Applicant must not come within 100 ft of the Virtual Complainant or his home nor enter the State of Georgia unless it is a scheduled Court hearing relative to the resolution of their domestic issues relating to Custody and Divorce proceedings;

b. The Applicant is ordered to return to both this Court and the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas on the 21st of February, 2024, for her Pre-Trial Review, and subsequently her trial scheduled for the 4th of March 2024. She was to attend all Pre-Trial and Trial Hearings subsequent hereto, unless expressly excused;

c. The Applicant is to be fitted with an Electronical (sic) Monitoring Device (EMD). The Applicant is required to comply with the 2010 Regulations for the use of such a device;

d. The Applicant is to reside at her residence located at 8830 Country Road 57N, Abbeville, Alabama 36310, United States of America. Any relocation without the prior approval of this Court will be deemed a breach of the Applicant's bail conditions;

e. The Applicant is permitted to leave the jurisdiction of The Bahamas to enter the United States of America until her Pre-trial Review and Trial in The Bahamas;

f. The information of the Applicant's bail variation must be relayed to the relevant authorities at Interpol, for monitoring purposes; and

g. The Applicants passport is ordered returned to her forthwith. Same will be surrendered into custody of the United States Embassy for her Pretrial Review and Trial.”

6 . In relation to Bethel, the initial conditions of his bail, as recorded in paragraph three of the decision of Grant-Thompson Snr. J. revoking his bail, were as follows:

“ 3 The Court originally granted Mr. Bethel's bail in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) with one (1) suretor. The Court implemented the following strict conditions:

a. That the Applicant be outfitted with an Electronic Monitoring Device; abide by the 2010 Regulations and conditions for the use of such a device;

b. That the Applicant keeps a curfew at his residence located at Sweeting Village, Marsh Harbour, Abaco from 8pm-6am daily;

c. That the Applicant sign into the Marsh Harbour Police Station three times per week on every Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays on or before 6pm;

d. That the Applicant is not to come within 100ft of the Virtual Complainant or interfere with any of the prosecution witnesses;

e. That the Applicant surrenders his travel documents to the Court and cannot travel without the express permission of the Court; and

f. That a breach of any of these conditions would result in the Bail to be immediately forfeited and render the Applicant liable to further remand at The Bahamas Department of Correctional Services (BDOCS).”

7 . Those conditions were later varied, as recorded in the decision, as follows:

“ 4. On the 11th of September, 2024, Mr. Terrance Bethel requested and received a bail variation with the following strict conditions:

a. That the Applicants (sic) EMD shall remain affixed to his person;

b. That the Applicant shall be allowed to relocate from his residence in Abaco, The Bahamas to New Providence, The Bahamas;

c. That the Applicant is to remain at his residence #216 Opal Close East, Treasure Cove, New Providence between the hours of 10:00pm and 6:00am;

d. The Applicant is not to come into any deliberate contact with any of the Prosecution witnesses in this matter either by himself or through an agent, nor come within 100ft of them;

e. The Applicant's passport is to remain in the...