The Director of Public Prosecutions v Marissa Rolle

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Grant- Thompson J
• Judgment Date: 07 February 2024
• Docket Number: 2011 CRI/bal/00073
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)

BETWEEN

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Applicant

and

Marissa Rolle

Allerdice Moxey

Suretors

and

Rashad Paul

Defendant

Before:

The Honourable Madam Senior Justice Mrs. Cheryl Grant-Thompson

2011 CRI/bal/00073

IN THE SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Appearances:

Director of Public Prosecutions Ms. Cordell Frazier along with Mrs. Karine MacVean, and Ms. Jameca Basden for the Prosecution - Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr. Donald Saunders- Counsel for the Suretors

RULING ON ESCHEAT OF SURETY-

DEFENDANT FAIL TO APPEAR AT TRIAL

BAIL SURETORS ENTERING INTO RECOGNIZANCE-

R. v. Wells Street Magistrates' Court ex parte Albanese [1981] All E.R; Alexander Beckles v. The Magistrate, Mag. App. No 253/67; R v Uxbridge Justices, ex p Heward-Mills [1983] 1 All ER 530; Taylor v COP [1992] BHS No.82; Zambar Baksh v The Magistrate First Court (unreported) Magristrate Appeal No 107/82; R v South Hampton Justices ex-parte Green [1975] 2 All ER 107; R v Crown Court at Maidstone ex parte level; R v Crown Court at Maidstone ex parte Connell

Grant- Thompson J

BACKGROUND

1 This case concerns the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of a suretor. The Crown seeks to escheat the forfeiture of recognisance of Ms. Marissa Rolle of Springfield Road and Ms. Allerdice Moxey of Whyll's Close. Both signed as suretors for the Defendant, Mr. Rashad Paul. Paul cannot be found.

2 The Defendant is charged with Murder. He was granted bail by the Honourable Madam Justice Mrs. Renae McKay on the 19 ^th of June, 2020, in the amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) with one (1) or two (2) suretors. His trial is set for hearing on the 15 ^th of April, 2024, before my sister Justice Mckay.

3 The Defendant's conditions for bail were as follows:

• a. The Defendant was to be fitted with an Electronic Monitoring Device (EMD) and ordered to abide by the Regulations of the use of such a device;

• b. The Defendant was to report to the Quakoo Street Police Station every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday before 6:00pm;

• c. The Defendant was required to remain at his residence between the hours of 10:00pm and 6:00am daily;

• d. The Defendant was not to come in contact with any of the witnesses in this matter; and

• e. That any breach of these conditions, shall result in the forfeiture of bail and render the Defendant liable to further remand at The Bahamas Department of Correctional Services.

4 The Defendant has breached every condition of Bail;

• • He has failed to report to the Quakoo Street Police Station as required;

• • He has failed to keep his curfew, in fact he is “on the lamb”, missing in action;

• • The Police has issued an all-points bulletin for his immediate apprehension for the offence of Murder;

• • His electronic Monitoring Device is no longer on his body but cast in a well; and

• • This Honourable Court has revoked his bail and issued a Bench Warrant for the immediate arrest of the Defendant. Breach of his bail conditions makes him liable to remand to The Bahamas Department of Correctional Services.

5 On the 19 ^th of June, 2020, Ms. Marissa Rolle and Ms. Allerdice Moxey (“the suretors”) both willfully signed a Bail Bond on behalf for the Defendant. They became his suretors with respect to Criminal bail number 00073/2011 in the amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) for which they were either jointly or severally liable. Ms. Moxey allegedly put up her property as security for the bond. Ms. Rolle relied on a job letter of modest means. A search of the Registry revealed no property papers, however, the Court has obtained a certified copy of same from the Registrar Generals office with the assistance of Counsel.

6 The Affidavit in Support of Revocation of Bail, filed by the Crown on the 18 ^th of January,2024, stated that;

• a. The Defendant, Rashad Paul a.k.a “Eyes” (D.O.B. 12/09/1990) was arrested on the 5 ^th of February, 2019, and further charged with the offence of the Murder(1 count) of Mr. Kirby Jean Pierre;

• b. The Defendant is suspected of the additional Murder of Mr. Travis Allen (D.O.B. 19/08/81) which occurred on the 6 ^th of January, 2023, sometime around 2:00pm in the area of East Street and Mason Addition;

• c. Subsequent to the Murder of Mr. Travis Allen, the Crown was informed by Metro Security Solutions that the Defendant was non-compliant with the conditions of the Electronic Monitoring Program, whereby there was a strap indications that the Defendant tampered with his device;

• d. It was further submitted by Metro Security Solutions that the EMD device has been removed by the Defendant and has been located through satellite feed, in a man-made well through Pratt Alley, which is not accessible; and

• e. Since the strap alert was received by Metro Security Solutions on the 6 ^th of January, 2024, at 2:15pm, the Defendant remains “off the grid” which is a clear violation of his bail conditions.

7 This Affidavit reveals that the Defendant is “off the grid” and is suspected of having committed another Murder. In addition to this, it is believed that the Defendant has tampered with his Electronic Monitoring Device, removing it and disposing it in a well through Pratt Alley.

8 The Applicant seeks to have the bond forfeited to the Crown in the amount of Thirty Thousand dollars ($30,000) and ordered paid by the suretors as the Defendant can no longer be located.

9 The suretors, Ms. Marissa Rolle and Ms. Allerdice Moxey both appeared (29/01/2024) before this Honourable Court, at which time they provided oral testimony as to why they should not be made to pay the amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000).

10 In her oral testimony, Ms. Rolle stated that:

• a. The Defendant is known to her as he is her baby's father;

• b. She would have normal communications with the Defendant over the telephone;

• c. She did willfully sign a Bail Bond in the amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) for the Defendant;

• d. She produced a job letter, showing her place of employment, and annual salary, to the Criminal Registry before signing the Bail Bond Form. She made One Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty-Four Dollars ($1,554) per month and an annual salary of Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($18,650) in 2020 when she signed the bond;

• e. She tried to contact the Defendant on the 3 ^rd of January, 2024. When he was to take her young daughter to the Carnival;

• f. She is unaware of where the Defendant is currently. Indeed she admitted he lived with another woman, his girlfriend;

• g. According to her, she was trying to contact the Defendant up until the 28 ^th of January, 2024;

• h. She first signed for the Defendant's bail without knowing the full amount of the Bail Bond;

• i. She was aware of the times that the Defendant was supposed to attend Court and his reporting conditions, yet she never checked in at the Quakoo Street Police Station nor was she specifically aware of his Court dates;

• j. She did not ensure that the Defendant upheld the conditions of his bail, as she was not ensuring that the Defendant;

  • i. checked into his assigned Police Station;

  • ii. was maintaining his curfew; and

  • iii. was not interfering with the witnesses of the Prosecution.

11 In her oral testimony, Ms. Moxey stated that:

• a. She works at the Straw Market. Her salary fluctuates. On a high earning week she could earn anywhere between Six Hundred to Eight Hundred Dollars ($600- 800) in remunerations;

• b. The Defendant is her Grandson;

• c. The last time she spoke to the Defendant was in December 2023;

• d. She did willfully sign a Bail Bond for the Defendant;

• e. She allegedly provided her property papers to the Criminal Registry in order to secure her portion of the Bond;

• f. She was aware of the Defendant's bail conditions;

• g. She did not see the Defendant often but would inquire about his adherence to the bail conditions whenever she saw him;

• h. She understood that when she signed the bond she would become responsible for the payment of the security and the bail;

• i. Her telephone number and home address was placed on the Bail Bond as the residence for the Defendant. However, the witness admitted that he does not reside with her;

• j. She does not check in on the Defendant as she is always at work;

• k. She does not know where the Defendant or his EMD currently is;

• l. She never had a telephone contact for the Defendant;

• m. She does not know the Defendant's Court dates, or whether he has been keeping the terms and conditions of his bail; and

• n. She did not ensure that the Defendant upheld the conditions of his bail. She did not ensure that the Defendant either;

  • i. checked into his assigned Police Station;

  • ii. maintained his curfew; and

  • iii. was not interfering with the Prosecution witnesses.

Issues

12 This Honourable Court is tasked with determining two (2) main issues:

• a. What are the duties and obligations of a suretor; and

• b. Whether the cash bond used as security for the Defendant, should be forfeited to the Crown.

Functions of a Suretor

13 A suretor ensures that the accused person attends Court every time he is instructed by the Court to be present. It is a major undertaking. If a suretor fails to produce the Defendant for his trial or hearings, or if any other condition is broken, the recognisance of the suretor is subject to be forfeited. In order to prevent this the suretor ought to stay in touch with the Defendant to ensure that he appears in Court. The suretors duty is to keep himself informed of the adjourned date of each hearing. They should not rely on the memory of the Defendant or anyone else. This Defendant has missed Court hearings. His trial is in eight (8) weeks and he can not be located.

14 The Court citied with approval the consideration of the suretors duties in the case of R. v. Wells Street Magistrates' Court ex parte Albanese [1981] All E.R. 769 at page 776. Paragraph d-g explained the nature of the...