The Law Association of T&T is not in support of any extension of the lives of the Bail (Amendment) Acts and the Anti-Gang Act 2011 which is now before the Parliament.
In a two-page release yesterday, president of the association, Reginald Armour, SC, explained the rationale behind the decision.
He said: "In the discharge of its mandate to protect and assist the public in T&T in all matters relating to the law, including to promote, maintain and support the administration of justice and the rule of law, the Law Association of T&T has maintained a clear and consistent position on the bail and anti-gang legislation."
In April 2015, Armour said they advised then attorney general Garvin Nicholas that "given the constitutional guarantees of reasonable bail, coupled with the presumption of innocence and the right to be brought promptly before an appropriate judicial authority, the association considered the proposed legislation then to be a disproportionate measure."
Armour said the association stated even then that in the face of firearms and firearms-related offences, the 2015 amendments to the Bail Act amounted to a denial of a person's constitutional rights.
"The Law Association called then for the repeal of the bail legislation," he stressed.
The proposed Bail and Anti-Gang Bills in 2016 now call for the extension of the operation of the Bail Act as amended until August 15, 2018, as well as the extension of the operation of the Anti-Gang Act 2011 for a further two-year period.
In its June 17 letter to Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi, Armour said the association stated it did not support either of the two bills being continued as law.
Their reasons included:
• Since their initial introduction, neither piece of legislation has acted as a deterrent to the commission of serious crime, nor has there been any explanation nor statistics presented to show that either piece of legislation has in essence reduced the crime rate.
• The pre-trial detention of persons without bail for a period of 120 days is not reasonably justifiable in a society that has proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual, given the urarguable inability of the criminal justice system to process those who are incarcerated under this legislation, within a reasonable time.
“In the association's view, that incarceration, therefore, amounts to a breach of the right to liberty without due process. Bail is now punitive in nature as opposed to securing the attendance of the accused at court.
• In fact, the legislation whose life would be extended under the proposed amendments has significantly increased the number of persons on remand. The conditions on remand where these accused are kept are acknowledged to be deplorable and have been judicially described as "barbaric" and "inhumane."
• The significant deficiencies of the forensic system resulting in unreasonable delay in forensic testing means that persons are unlikely to have matters involving the use of a firearm, heard within a minimum of two to three years.
• There are no safeguards against malfeasance by police officers in a situation in which the mere mention by a police complainant of suspicion of possession of a firearm (or something resembling a firearm) invokes the no bail provisions.
REASONS
Their reasons included:
• Since their initial introduction, neither piece of legislation has acted as a deterrent to the commission of serious crime, nor has there been any explanation nor statistics presented to show that either piece of legislation has in essence reduced the crime rate.
• The pre-trial detention of persons without bail for a period of 120 days is not reasonably justifiable in a society that has proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual, given the arguable inability of the criminal justice system to process those who are incarcerated under this legislation, within a reasonable time.
“In the association's view, that incarceration, therefore, amounts to a breach of the right to liberty without due process. Bail is now punitive in nature as opposed to securing the attendance of the accused at court.
• In fact, the legislation whose life would be extended under the proposed amendments has significantly increased the number of persons on remand. The conditions on remand where these accused are kept are acknowledged to be deplorable and have been judicially described as "barbaric" and "inhumane."
• The significant deficiencies of the forensic system resulting in unreasonable delay in forensic testing means that persons are unlikely to have matters involving the use of a firearm, heard within a minimum of two to three years.
• There are no safeguards against malfeasance by police officers in a situation in which the mere mention by a police complainant of suspicion of possession of a firearm (or something resembling a firearm) invokes the no bail provisions.