PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad– Attorneys for the Office of the Attorney General are seeking to petition the London-based Privy Council after the Court of Appeal here Thursday refused a stay or suspension of its February 17 decision, essentially giving anyone facing a murder charge the opportunity to apply for bail.
“We expect any bail application will be dealt with dispatch by the judges hearing them, and after they are satisfied, they have before them all information for the grant of bail,” Chief Justice Ivor Archie said as nothing now prevents anyone accused of murder from applying for bail as of Friday.
Justice Archie has already warned that even if 1,000 bail applications were to be filed by next week, they can’t all be heard at once, saying, “this is a case management issue we have to leave to the discretion of the judges of the High Court.”
Justice Ivor Archie
The three-member Court of Appeal, including justices Mira Dean-Armour and Malcolm Holdip Thursday, ruled that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to grant a stay or suspension as it was not a money judgment, nor were there statutory provisions to do so.
They did, however, grant conditional leave, and once the State pays its 500 British pounds (One British pound=US$1.32 cents) to the Privy Council and the record of appeal was settled within the next week, the final leave will be granted so the State can take its appeal to the London court.
“I am sure we can get something filed by next Monday or Tuesday,” said Senior Counsel and lead counsel for the Attorney General’s Office, Fayard Hosein.
In its oral ruling, Justice Archie said the Appeal Court had to consider if, when refusing a stay, it would pose a danger to the public, a threat to the rule of law, and security concerns. But, he said it would be inimical to continue to fail to enforce the constitutional rights of citizens when the courts have declared people are entitled to such protection.
The Chief Justice said granting bail in this jurisdiction continues to be regulated by the Bail Act. Assuming the Court had an inherent authority to grant the stay/suspension, there were several factors the Court would have considered.
He said one of those factors is whether refusing or granting a stay would cause a danger to the public.
“Well, the Judiciary still has the discretion to grant or not grant bail, and we expect that to be exercised responsibly by High Court judges.
“We considered the fact that further restrictions of rights or benefits to which persons would be entitled would not be right and injustice. The Court can protect the State’s interest on the applications,” he said, adding that the rule of law would not be threatened if the stay were refused.
On February 17, the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal of a former murder accused, Akili Charles. He challenged the constitutionality of section 5(1) of the Bail Act of 1994, which made murder a non-bailable offense.
The Court held the section was unconstitutional as it interfered with the Court’s jurisdiction to grant bail, in breach of the separation of powers, and was not reasonably justifiable in a society that has proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.
The Court’s order had been temporarily suspended, but the parties were ordered to file submissions for a longer suspension to allow the State to appeal at the Privy Council.
The suspension application contained affidavits from the Director of Public Prosecutions, the head of the Legal Secretariat at the Office of the Attorney General, and the acting permanent secretary of the Ministry of National Security. They all spoke to the hardships various state departments will face if there is no longer suspension.
Former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, who is leading the case for Charles, had argued that the Court only had such powers when it came to matters involving parties having some gain to receive by a particular ruling.
He said his client had no gain to receive. The case involved the constitutional rights of individuals. Therefore, the Court did not have the jurisdiction to grant any stay/suspension of its declaration.
“This judgment is long overdue and may be used as a catalyst to force the executive to make sure people’s rights are protected. Is it not fair that a man who is presumed innocent, that he must always bear the brunt of this oppressive system that we are operating in,” said Ramlogan, who served as attorney general here between 2010-15.
and then 