Struck down! Bail Act now remains 'unaltered'
Published:Sunday | July 17, 2011 | 12:00 AM
Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
FORMER JUSTICE Minister Senator A.J. Nicholson, QC, has welcomed the court's ruling that last year's amendments to the Bail Act were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court struck down the amendments last Friday.
He explained that, as leader of Opposition business, when the proposed legislation came to be debated in the Senate he advised that the People's National Party (PNP) would not lend support to the amendments because the Government ministers who piloted the Bill failed to convince them that the amend-ments were not in breach of certain sections of the Chapter on Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
"We also advised them that the fact we did not lend our support should not be taken as any indication that we were not supportive of crime-fighting tools," Nicholson said.
It was reported then that shortly before six anti-crime bills were passed on July 9 last year, former resident magistrate Senator Marlene Malahoo Forte had acknowledged that the Interim Bail Act to provide for a 60-day detention of persons who commit serious gun and drug-related offences was draconian.
A Full Court, comprising Justice Horace Marsh, Justice Patrick Brooks and Justice Leighton Pusey held on Friday that the amendments were unconstitutional and made several declarations.
Written reasons pending
Attorneys-at-law Norman Godfrey and Marcus Greenwood, whose clients were denied bail on murder charges, took the issue to court in May. Judgment was reserved. The written reasons will be handed down soon.
The lawyers argued that the amendments amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and interfered with the judges' discretion to grant bail. They said the amendments removed a citizen's fundamental right to bail.
Godfrey explained shortly after the ruling that the amendments were no longer in force and "the Bail Act now remains unaltered". He said the Act was now in the position it was prior to the amendments in July 2010.
Amendments were made to the Bail Act as the Government struggled to deal with the high crime rate and was expected to be in place for one year. The 60-day period in custody was subject to the right of the person being held to be brought before the court after seven days, and thereafter at 14-day intervals, at which time the court reviews the question of whether the person should continue to be held in custody or bail be considered. The prosecution also had the right to appeal against the granting of bail.
Commenting further on the court's ruling, Nicholson said that piece of legislation was passed by the vote of government members in the Senate at a time when the government side was in no mood to be detained by any suggestion coming from the Opposition.
In the meantime, the Independent Jamaican Council for Human Rights has lauded the Supreme Court ruling saying that some human rights are, indeed, protected by the Constitution .
"The Court acted as the fairest arbiter between the people and the State and has stood in protection of the human rights of Jamaicans, for this the council is exceedingly pleased," the human rights body said in a press release yesterday.
According to the Independent Jamaican Council For Human Rights, the court's decision "has vindicated the position of the council that the measures contained in the Bail (Interim Provisions For Specified Offences) Act were unconstitutional and contained unlawful provisions, as was stated by the council in 2008 in its submissions to Parliament when a series of bills were laid with the stated purpose of reducing crime.
"We urge Parliament not to pass any further legislation without carefully measuring the intended provisions against what is acceptable within the Constitution and in the civilised world," the council cautioned.