Colleagues would recall when I laid the Bill in this Honorable House a few weeks ago I said that crime and the fear of crime are among the principal issues concerning Bahamians (in which I include people who live and work in The Bahamas and visit The Bahamas) today.

Today I reiterate that the Swift Justice initiative, the assurance that offenders and would be offenders will be swiftly caught, swiftly tried and swiftly punished, will greatly contribute to breaking the back of crime and the fear of crime.

Law abiding people in The Bahamas have every right to expect that they will be safe in their homes and as they go from place to place on our streets.  The stakeholders in the administration of justice, some of whom I have the privilege to lead, want to make it clear that we are making every effort to ensure that everyone in The Bahamas can SEE that we live by Christian Values and the RULE OF LAW, as we so proudly state in our Constitution.

To administer Swift Justice, we need tools to meet the challenges of the times in which we live.

Those on the front line have point unanimously agree, indeed, have called for and I agree with them that these amendments to the criminal law are tools needed in 2006.

The Commissioner of Police has already indicated his concern about the disturbing trend of serious offences being committed while people are out on bail.

In conversations with Magistrates, those before whom most Bail applications are made, they said they are often shocked to see how many people whose request for bail was denied by them (Magistrates) are back before them requesting bail for another offence committed while out on bail. These people had gone to the Supreme Court as been granted bail.

These tools are needed as a step in that direction.

There are more steps to come.

Let me repeat some of the facts mentioned when I tabled the Bill.

In October 2004, a 25 year old Flamingo Gardens resident, on bail for murder, was charged for 2 Rapes and 2 Attempted Rapes, which occurred between June and October 2004.  This is just one bail statistic. There are many more on bail.
I just want to give an example of why the police say we need to address this issue.

In addressing the issue we should never forget that the police and prosecutors are on the front line.

Another reason why we must address circumstances where persons out on bail for murder (or any other serious offence) take the opportunity to commit further serious offences such as rapes and attempted rapes is that we do not want people who put their lives at risk to protect us to become demoralized.

I also shared statistics on crimes using firearms. Let me repeat them.

1. In 2004, 14 (7%) of 234 persons arrested in relation to firearms offences were on bail.

2. In 2004 the majority of violent crimes committed in The Bahamas were perpetrated with the use of a firearm.
 

3. In 2004many perpetrators leased or loaned firearms to others in order to commit criminal acts.  Ballistic analysis verified that a single firearm had links to multiple incidents, i.e. armed robberies, shootings, murders and grievous harm.
a.  A firearm used in a 2004 murder was linked to a 2004 Attempted Armed Robbery & Assault.
b.  A firearm found in an individual’s possession in 2004 was linked to a 2003 murder.
 

c. A firearm found in an individual’s possession in 2004 was linked to a 2002 Attempted Murder/Armed Robbery with possible links to four sexual assaults.
d. The ammunition in a 2004 Armed Robbery was linked to a 2004 Murder and an Attempted Armed Robbery.

Protecting law abiding citizens.

Showing that we live by the rule of law.

Taking back our streets.

These are some reasons Mr. Speaker, that the Government pursues the amendments set out in the Criminal Law Miscellaneous (Amendment) Bill, 2006.
This Bill seeks to amend the Bail Act and the Firearms Act, in an effort to improve the criminal law and the efficiency in the administration of justice.

In particular, the Bill in clause 2 seeks to amend the Bail Act, which governs applications for bail in all criminal matters, including extradition.

This proposed amendment seeks to provide for a new section 8A to provide for a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal by the prosecution or a person (accused or convicted), as the case may be where bail has been granted or refused to that person by the Supreme Court or where an application by the prosecution to revoke bail has been denied.

This right of appeal by the prosecution is particularly important as statistics have shown that persons, while on bail take not only the opportunity to abscond but more importantly to commit further crimes.  The police have indicated that persons out on bail sometimes interfere with witnesses either by themselves or through their acquaintances.
Honourable members may be aware that the Privy Council recently ruled that the Crown did not have a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in bail matters. The Privy Council in that case did say that the Learned Judge who granted bail in the matter was probably wrong in that Judge’s decision to grant bail. This matter, which attracts international attention, points to the need for our Court of Appeal, a statutory body with no inherent powers, to be clothed with the full scope of appellate powers even in interlocutory matters.

The Court of Appeal is, after all, now a full time resident appellate Court.

We support those on the front line of fighting crime that in 2006, the decision of a Supreme Court judge to grant bail to not grant bail or to revoke or fail to revoke bail out to be reviewable by the Court of Appeal.

The ability of the Court of Appeal to conduct these reviews are also a part of the orderly, progressive, development of our judicial system and our jurisprudence.

I want to acknowledge a view that there is sometimes judicial arbitrariness in the decision to grant bail. Let me be clear, I am not accusing any Judge or suggesting that there has been judicial arbitrariness.
What I am saying is that in even in interlocutory matters such as the exercise of a judge’s discretion in respect of the grant of bail, it would be entirely appropriate for there to be a level of appellate review, which to shield any judicial officer from allegations of bias.
 
The proposed amendment to the Bail Act also seeks to provide for an accused or convicted person, as the case may be, to enjoy the same right to appeal as the prosecution, thus ensuring fairness and a balance within the judicial process.

To be clear about how they system now works:
• There presently exists in the Bail Act, the right of the Crown (prosecutions are conducted in the name of the Queen) to seek a review of (appeal) a Magistrate’s decision to grant bail, and a consequential requirement for that Magistrate.
• Once the Crown indicates an intention to seek that review (appeal), the Crown may request that the accused be remanded into custody for the purposes of being brought before a Judge of the Supreme Court for the hearing of that review (appeal).
 

• The accused person of course also has a right to apply to the Supreme Court against the decision of a Magistrate in refusing bail or in respect of the conditions imposed in granting bail.

The decision of the Supreme Court is now the end of the matter.

As indicated, this Bill proposes that the decision of the Supreme Court should be reviewable (appealable) by the Crown or the accused.

Mr. Speaker, before moving away from bail, I would like to indicate that the matter of the conditions upon which a person may be released on bail is also under review.
As you would be aware, the Constitution provides that a person may be released on bail either unconditionally or upon reasonable conditions,…“including in particular such conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure that he appears at a later date for trial or for proceedings preliminary to trial.”  (Constitution, Article 19(3)).

In this age of modern technology, a provision by which a person on certain types of criminal charges, instead of being incarcerated, could be released on bail but his movements monitored by a tracking device may well be feasible and entirely warranted.

This would:
• reduce the vexing issue of prison overpopulation
• give citizens the assurance that that person, charged with a criminal offence, is being monitored
• ensure that the accused is not exposed to an allegation of involvement in any other offence.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Firearms Act seek to provide for certain offences to be tried either summarily or by indictment.

The Bill seeks to amend sections 9(2), 15(2) and 32(5) of the Act to provide for certain existing firearm offences to be hybrid offences.  That is offences that could be triable either way, either on summary trial or on indictment.  Such offences are –
 (a) purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition without a certificate;
 (b) purchasing, acquiring or possessing a gun or uses or carries a gun without a licence; and
 (c)  possessing a firearm or ammunition during a period for which one is subject to the supervision of the police or to be of good behaviour or of keeping the peace OR selling, transferring a firearm or ammunition, or repairing, testing or proving a firearm or ammunition for any person prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition.

The law is clear about the means by which citizens may possess firearms and ammunition.  This amendment does not seek to interfere with those provisions.  The amendment seeks only to make certain EXISTING offences triable either summarily (in Magistrate’s Court) or on indictment (in the Supreme Court).

The amendments will eliminate the difficulties faced where a person charged with an offence under these sections can only be tried summarily.

Honourable members would be aware that under the present law, if a serious offence, such as murder, armed robbery or rape, is committed using an unlicenced firearm,  the accused will be tried in the Supreme Court for the serious offence and in the Magistrate’s Court of the firearms offences.

This amendment will now allow the prosecution to charge also on the Indictment before the Supreme Court the offence pertaining to the firearm.
As a result:

• There will no longer be 2 separate trials (on the in Supreme Court and one in the Magistrate’s Court) grounded on the same facts
• Playing the system will be decreased
• Delays will be decreased
• The accused will know that the matter is finished and be able to make decisions about how he or she wishes to proceed
• Judicial time will not be wasted

The need for such an amendment acknowledges the serious nature of the possession of an unlicensed firearm and its use in serious offences and therefore allows for a sensible and practical procedure to address both offences together.

The amendment also brings about uniformity with section 5(1) of the Act which deals with revolvers and which allows for the offence to be triable either way.

Additionally, while the penalties in section 9(2) and 15(2) remain the same for summary trial, the proposed amendment seeks to increase on summary trial the penalty in section 32(5) from three months OR to a fine of $150 TO imprisonment for a term of five years AND, in addition, to a fine of $5,000.00, such gun or ammunition shall be forfeited.

I want to make it clear that in this amendment we are talking about ILLEGAL possession of firearms and these firearms being used to perpetrate serious offences.

These matters will now be triable on indictment and punishment will be increased.

I want to end where I began. Citizens expect that they will be safe in their homes and as they go from place to place on the streets.  The men and women in the Royal Bahamas Police Force, among the finest law enforcement officers in the world, those on the front line, indicate that these amendments are important tools in their arsenal to fight crime.

I, as the Attorney General, support their view and I invite Honourable Members, to support this Bill so that they may have the tools necessary in 2006 to more effectively fight crime.