Rashild Jonson v Director of public Prosecutions

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Darville Gomez, J
• Judgment Date: 09 December 2021
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)
• Docket Number: 2016/CRg/bal/No, 00076

IN THE SUPREME COURT

Before:

The Honourable Madam Justice Camille Darville Gomez

2016/CRg/bal/No, 00076

Between

Rashild Johnson

Applicant

and

Director Of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

APPEARANCES:

Mr Nathan Smith for the Applicant

RULING

Darville Gomez, J

1 The Applicant applied for bail by Summons and Affidavit filed on 12 November, 2021.

2 The Applicant is charged with the following offences laid out in the Charge Sheet exhibited to his Affidavit. He has not yet been served with the Voluntary Bill of indictment

• (i) Armed Robbery alleged to have been committed on 3 April, 2021;

• (ii) Abetment to Attempted Murder (3 counts) alleged to have been committed on 14 April, 2021;

• (iii) Abetment to Possession of Firearm with Intent to Endanger Life alleged to have been committed on 14 April, 2021.

3 The Applicant refers to having been arraigned on 19 April, 2020 in the Magistrates Court in relation to the following offences:

• (i) Armed Robbery;

• (ii) Abetment to Attempted Murder (2 counts);

• (iii) Abetment to Possession of Firearm (2 counts)

4 Further, he refers to having a pending change for Armed Robbery from 2015.

5 The Respondent's Affidavit at “Exhibit DS7” shows the following charges against the Applicant:

• (i) Armed Robbery alleged to have been committed on 15 December, 2015;

• (ii) Receiving alleged to have been committed on 15 December, 2015.

6 In relation to these charges, the Applicant is presently on bail for $15,000 (by virtue of a Bail Bond dated 15 ^th March, 2016) which includes twice weekly reporting to the East Street Police Station and no contact or non-interference with any witnesses.

7 The Respondent's Affidavit also exhibited at” DS8” the Voluntary Bill of Indictment evidencing that the Applicant is also charged with the following offences:

• (i) Attempted Murder alleged to have been committed on 22 ^nd August 2020;

• (ii) Possession of a Firearm with Intent to Endanger Life alleged to have been committed on 22 ^nd August, 2020,

8 In relation to these charges, the Applicant is presently on bail for $20,000 (by virtue of a Bail Bond dated 7th April, 2021) and has thrice weekly reporting to the East Street South Police Station, was fitted with an Electronic Monitoring Device and is not to interfere with prosecution witnesses.

9 The factors to be considered in a bail application are found in section 4(2) (c) of the Act, which reads:

“4. (2) Notwithstanding any other provision 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;

(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.

10 Section 4 (28) reads:

(2B) For the purpose of subsection (2)(e), in deciding whether or not to grant bail to a person charged with an offence mentioned in Part C of the First Schedule, the character or antecedents of the person charged, the need to protect the safety of the public or public order and, where appropriate, the need to protect the safety of the victim or victims of the alleged offence, are to be primary considerations.”

11 Finally, Part A states:

“PARTA

In considering whether to grant bail to a defendant the court shall have regard to the following factors-

(a) whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail, would

(i) fail to surrender to custody or appear at his trial;

(1i) commit an offence while on bail; or

(iii) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person;

(b) whether the defendant should be kept in custody for his own protection or, where he is a child or young person, for his own welfare;

(c) whether he is in custody in pursuance of the sentence of a Court or any authority acting under the Defence Act;

(d) whether there is sufficient information for the purpose of taking the decisions required by this Part or otherwise by this Act;

(e) whether having been released on bail in or in connection with the proceedings for the offence, he is arrested pursuant to section 12;

(f) whether having been released on bail previously, he is charged subsequently either with an offence similar to that in respect of which he was so released or with an offence which is punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year;

(m) the nature and seriousness of the offence and the nature and strength of the evidence against the defendant

(h) in the case of violence allegedly committed upon another by the defendant the courts paramount consideration Is the need to protect the alleged victim.”

12 in the instant matter, since the issue of delay is not a factor, I do not consider it i weighing up the factors which are to be considered in determining whether should exercise my discretion in granting bail

13 For the purpose of deciding whether to or not to grant bail with an offenc mentioned in Part C of the First Schedule (one of which is armed robbery and a offence the Applicant is charged with), the character or antecedents of the perso charged, the need to protect the safely of the public or public order and, wher appropriate, the need to protect the safety of the victim or victims of the allege offence are to be primary considerations, i now address these in turn.

14 The Applicant who is 23 years old, single without children paints himself as ; hardworking man eager to support his family and a contributing member c society.

15 However, he did admit to having previous charges for Armed Robbery, Abetmen to Attempted Murder and Abetment to Possession of a Firearm with Intent to Endanger Life which charges he denies any involvement in.

16 The Court is always concerned for the safety of the victim or victims of the alleged offence however, there is nothing to suggest in the Respondent's Affidavit fha there is any threat or reason to be concerned with this for the purpose of no granting bail. Further, taking into consideration that the Applicant at the date o arrest had previous charges for similar offences and there has not been anything to suggest that the victim or victims in those cases feared for their safety since the Applicant had been on bail.

17 The real concern of the Court in the instant case is the fact that at the date...