Solomon Lameech Williams A.K.A Solomon Higgs v Director of Public Prosecutions

JurisdictionBahamas
JudgeDarville Gomez, J.
Judgment Date30 August 2022
CourtSupreme Court (Bahamas)
Docket Number2022/CRI/bal/No.00189
Between:
Solomon Lameech Williams A.K.A Solomon Higgs
Applicant
and
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Before:

The Honourable Madam Justice Camille Darville-Gomez

2022/CRI/bal/No.00189

IN THE SUPREME COURT

Criminal Division

Appearances:

Solomon Lameech Williams aka Solomon Higgs appearing pro se.

Ms. Cashena Thompson for the Respondent

BAIL DECISION
Darville Gomez, J.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1

The Applicant, 32 year old Solomon Lameech Williams a.k.a Solomon Higgs is charged with the offence of Armed Robbery contrary to 339 (2) of the Penal Code Chapter 84. The particulars are: ‘That you on Saturday 18 th June, 2022, while at New Providence, and armed with an offensive instrument to wit: a handgun, did rob Emmanuel Armbrister of a Black Samsung S 21 valued at $250.00, a Black TCL cellphone valued at $130.00 and a Silver 2013 Nissan Tiida Latio L/P#SN#1492 VALUED AT $5,500. Property of Shon Missick’. The Applicant is currently in custody at the Bahamas Department of Correctional Services (‘BDOCS’). He was arraigned on the above mentioned charge sometime in June, 2022 before the Magistrate's Court and is likely to be served with his Voluntary Bill of Indictment (‘VBI’) on the 5 th October, 2022.

2

The Applicant applied for bail pursuant to section 4 of the Bail Act by way of Summons and supporting Affidavit both filed on the 12 th August 2022. He followed up with a letter dated the 26 th August, 2022 addressed to this Court requesting the grant of bail.

3

The Respondent filed an Affidavit in Response on the 22 nd August, 2022 outlining their reasons for objecting to the Applicant's application for Bail.

THE APPLICANT'S CASE
4

The Applicant claimed that prior to his incarceration, he worked in maintenance repairing buildings. He averred in his Affidavit that he has been mistaken, claiming in essence that he is innocent of the charge of Armed Robbery against him. He swore in his Affidavit that he has no previous convictions nor any pending matters before any courts in this jurisdiction. With that said, he added that he is not a flight risk as all of his ties are to The Bahamas and stated that he will refrain from any interference with prosecution's witnesses in this matter. The Applicant submitted that there are adequate conditions which this Court can impose should it exercise its discretion and grant bail; and that such grant will permit him to retain legal counsel to appropriately prepare his defence.

THE CROWN'S CASE
5

The Crown relied on its Affidavit in Response to support its objection to the grant of bail. To support their objection, Crown Counsel submitted that the Applicant has a past criminal history and directed the court to the Applicant's Criminal Records Antecedent Form at Exhibit “TF-2” of their Affidavit. Counsel elaborated on the argument that the Applicant's history reflects convictions for similar offences to that of Armed Robbery such as stealing/receiving and threats of death which portrays violent behaviour. Therefore, the Applicant will commit offences if released on bail and it is not in the interests of public safety to grant bail.

6

Crown Counsel also averred that that the Applicant is not trustworthy as he deceived the Court by swearing at paragraph 5 of his Affidavit that he has no pending matters in any court nor convictions. In addition, Counsel pointed out that the Applicant was convicted sometime around 13 th March, 2007 for Deceit of a Public Officer to support the argument that he is dishonest. To further support the argument, Crown Counsel pointed out paragraph 6 of the Applicant's Affidavit concerning the Identification Parade and Exhibited a form marked “TF — 6” where the Applicant allegedly noted that he is not willing to attend an identification parade.

7

Crown Counsel submitted two cases for the court's consideration when determining whether the Applicant should be granted or denied bail: Hurman v The State [2005] UKPC 49 and Jevon Seymour and The DPP SCCrApp No. 115 of 2019.

THE ISSUE
8

The issue at hand is whether the Applicant, Solomon Lameech Williams a.k.a Solomon Higgs should be granted or refused bail.

THE LAW
9

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.”

10

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;…”

11

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 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.

(3) Notwithstanding any other enactment, an application for bail by a person who has been convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in respect of any offence mentioned in Part D of the First Schedule shall lie to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.

(3A) Notwithstanding section 3 or any other law, the Magistrates Court shall not have jurisdiction for the grant of bail in respect of any person charged with an offence mentioned in Part C or Part D of the First Schedule.”

12

The Amendments to the First Schedule found at Part A outlines some factors that the Court must take into consideration when determining whether to grant bail to an Applicant/Defendant. Part A reads as follows:

“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;

    • (ii) commit an offence while on bail; or

    • (iii) interfere with witnesses or...

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