The Director of Public Prosecutions v Berkley Fowler

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Grant-Thompson, J
• Judgment Date: 24 January 2024
• Docket Number: 2012 CRI/bal/00230
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)

BETWEEN

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Applicant

and

Berkley Fowler

Respondent

BEFORE:

The Honourable Madam Senior Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson

2012 CRI/bal/00230

IN THE SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Bail — Bail Act — Application for Bail — Bahamian — Ties to Community — Whether applicant is a fit and proper candidate for bail

APPEARANCES:

Director of Public Prosecutions Ms. Cordell Frazier - The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Applicant

Pro Se- Counsel for the Respondent

BAIL JUDGMENT

Grant-Thompson, J

1 This is an Application for the Revocation of Bail, brought by Madam Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms. Cordell Frazier, Counsel for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the Applicant”). Counsel for the Applicant contends the Respondent has whilst on bail for the offence of Murder, committed the offence of Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm and Possession of Ammunition, contrary to Section 5B and 9(2)(a) of the Firearms Act, Chapter 213.

2 Mr. Berkley Fowler pled guilty to the offence of Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm and Possession of Ammunition. The Respondent has been in clear breach of his bail conditions. This is not the behavior of a man fit and proper to continue to be granted bail.

3 According to the Affidavit In Response produced by the Applicant and filed on the 19 ^th of January, 2024, which states:

• a. With respect to the Murder charge, the Respondent was granted bail on the 6 ^th of December, 2012, in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) with one or two sureties. That other conditions imposed were that the Respondent be fitted with an Electronic Monitoring Device and to report to San Andros Police Station every Monday before 6:00pm; and

• b. The evidence against the Applicant in respect to the Murder offence is cogent according to the Applicant. The Applicant during his Record of Interview dated the 30 ^th of April, 2012, allegedly admitted to killing his step father by choking him until he was unconscious and then putting a plastic bag over his head and driving him out to the Airport Road, where the Respondent left the deceased.

4 The Crown laid before the Court a myriad of reasons for the revocation of the Respondent's bail. The primary reason is that the Applicant has not been compliant with his current Bail conditions and therefore then he is not a fit and proper candidate for bail.

APPLICABLE LAW

5 The Court is to consider if there are appropriate alternative conditions which can be imposed. In Jevon Seymour v The Director of Public Prosecution SCCrApp No. 115 of 2019, Crane-Scott JA observed at paragraph 50 of Judgment:

“ 50. We are satisfied that even if the learned judge found (as he could) that the Crown's evidence was “cogent” and was prepared to infer (as he did) that given the nature and seriousness of the offences and the likely penalty, that appellant might have a powerful incentive to abscond, that is not the end of the matter. Such a “finding” is not in itself a reason for denying an applicant bail. Accordingly, if the learned judge concluded that the appellant might be tempted to abscond, in the proper exercise of his discretion, he ought also to have proceeded to consider whether that risk could nonetheless be effectively eliminated by the imposition of appropriate conditions.”

6 The charge of Murder is one of the most serious offences that one can commit. Upon conviction, the Court may impose a sentence of life imprisonment. It follows therefore that the Applicant facing this serious charge for which he is liable to a severe penalty, if convicted, has...