The Director of Public Prosecutions v Shando King

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Jeanine Weech-Gomez
• Judgment Date: 06 November 2024
• Docket Number: CRI/BAL/00048/2024
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecution

and

Shando King

Defendant

Berttina Rolle

Christopher Bain

Suretors

Before:

The Honourable Madam Justice Jeanine Weech-Gomez

CRI/BAL/00048/2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Accused Absconded — Surertors to show Cause — Escheat of Bail — Factors to Consider

Appearances:

Ms. Shenicka Carey for the Prosecution

Mr. Bjorn Ferguson for the Suretors

Introduction

1 Shando King (“ Mr. King”) was charged with four (4) counts of Attempted Murder contrary to section 292 of the Penal Code, Chapter 84 (“ Penal Code”) and four (4) counts of Possession of a Firearm with the intent to endanger life contrary to section 33 of the Firearm Act, Chapter 213 (“ Offences”).

2 On 07 March 2024, Mr. King filed a Summons and supporting affidavit (“ Applicant's Affidavit”) requesting bail.

3 The Prosecution filed an Affidavit in Response and the Affidavit of Inspector Jason Brown on 18 March 2024.

4 This Court granted bail on 09 April 2024 in the following terms:

Bail is therefore granted in the sum of $30,000.00 with two (2) suretors together with the following conditions:

• 1) The Applicant is to be fitted with an Electronic Monitoring Device (“ EMD”).

• 2) The Applicant is to sign in at the Airport Police Station every Monday, Thursday and Saturday before 6pm.

• 3) The Applicant nor his agents are to have any deliberate contact with the Prosecution's witnesses in this matter.

5 On 24 May 2024, Mr. King absconded. His EMD was later recovered. However, to date he has not been located.

6 A Bench Warrant was immediately issued by this Court for the arrest of Mr. King. To date, Mr. King has not been apprehended and his whereabouts are unknown by Ms. Rolle the remaining suretor.

7 The two suretors named for Mr. Shando King are Ms. Berttina Rolle (“ Ms. Rolle”) and Mr. Christopher Bain (the suretors were father and daughter). Sadly, Mr. Christopher passed away on 10 October 2024 (as seen by his Death Certificate provided to the Court).

8 Accordingly, the Court instructed the Prosecution to have the suretors to either bring the Defendant Shando King before the court immediately or to show cause why the Bail bond ought not be es cheated to the Crown.

9 On 18 ^th June 2024 suretor Brettina G Rolle was present with her Attorney and the court was informed by the Attorney that the other suretor Mr. C Bain was ill. The suretors were again given an opportunity to bring the Defendant into the court. The court finally heard arguments on the 6 ^th November 2024 by which time a Death Certificate had been produced for Mr. Bain.

Evidence

10 On 06 November, Ms. Rolle was sworn and gave evidence. During her testimony, she provided the following evidence: (i) She is a high school teacher; (ii) Mr. King is her nephew; (iii) on 11 April 2024, she signed a Bail Bond; (iv) Mr, King resides at Imperial Park; (v) Once the bond was signed, she spoke with Mr. King face to face or by telephone; (vi) on a few occasions, she carried Mr. King to sign in to the requisite police station; (vii) one the last occasion she escorted Mr. King to the police station, she did not see anything out of the ordinary. This was the last occasion she saw or heard from Mr. King; (viii) once she learned he absconded, she called Mr. King's mother and other family to confirm if it was true; (xi) Ms. Rolle tried to reach Mr. King, but was unable to; and (x) she nor any other family member of Mr. King assisted him in absconding.

11 On cross examination, Ms. Rolle provided the following evidence: (i) when asked how long Mr. Christopher Bain was ill, she could not say; and (ii) she confirmed that the family learned of his diagnosis in May or June of this year.

Law, Discussion and Analysis

12 Having considered counsel's submissions, I will now provide the law and analysis of this case.

13 Section 14 of the Bail Act provides:

“(1) Where a person has given security in pursuance of section 9(4), and the Court is satisfied that the person failed to surrender to custody, then, unless it appears that he had reasonable cause for his failure, the Court may order the forfeiture of the security.

(2) Where a Court orders the forfeiture of a security under subsection (1), the Court may declare that the forfeiture extends to such amount less than the full value of the security as it thinks fit to order””

14 Grant-Thompson Snr. J provided a helpful discourse on the law with respect to escheating bail in the case of The Director of Public Prosecutions v Marissa Rolle - 2011 CRI/bal/00073 at paragraphs 13 to 15, 18, 20 and 22:

“ 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...