Thursday, September 29, 2011

Mr. Arthur Dion Hanna Jr has overstated his case against National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest for his remarks "criticising and vilifying the judiciary"

tribune242 editorial



ON THIS page today - in the Letters to the Editor column - Mr A Dion Hanna, the lawyer son of former governor-general AD Hanna, criticised National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest for his remarks "criticising and vilifying the judiciary". He accused Mr Turnquest of blaming the judiciary for "the state of murders in the country" today.

It is obvious from the facts that Mr Hanna has overstated his case.

National Security Minister Turnquest did not blame the judiciary for the "state of murders in the country".

However, he did say in a talk to Rotarians on September 22 that the courts' growing practice of granting bail to repeat offenders of violent crimes was "greatly contributing" to the country's escalating crime problem.

In other words, the courts were not the cause, but were certainly one of the many contributors to what is now a major security and social problem. As Mr Hanna, a lawyer, should appreciate, his statement of what he alleged Mr Turnquest said and what in fact Mr Turnquest did say are oceans apart. A contributor to a situation is certainly not the cause of the situation.

Mr Hanna also claims that Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett called a press conference to defend the Bahamas' legal system against Mr Turnquest's "flagrant attack on the judiciary". Mr Hanna interpreted the calling of a press conference by Sir Michael as "of itself a most unusual event".

In fact, this "most unusual event" never took place. No press conference was either called or held. Instead, an enterprising journalist contacted Sir Michael to ask his opinion on Mr Turnquest's remarks and got a commendable interview.

Mr Hanna then criticised Attorney General John Delaney for failing to "defend the rule of law and the honour and integrity of our courts". In the matter of bail for repeat offenders -- which is what is the issue here -- the Attorney General is too sensible a man to make a fool of himself in public by defending the indefensible on this particular question.

And, in case Mr Hanna is trying to turn this into a political football we must point out that during the Christie administration, the concern of legislators over the matter of bail was the same as it is now.

If the Christie government's former attorney general - Allison Maynard Gibson - is to be believed - and there is no reason not to believe her - there was concern even in the ranks of the magistrates.

On May 19, 2006, speaking on the amendment to the Criminal Law Miscellaneous (Amendment Act), Mrs Maynard had this to say: "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 and been granted bail."
She then gave examples of repeat offenders continuing a life of violent crime while they awaited trial for a previous offence or offences. Her observations and comments were in lock-step with Mr Turnquest.

She also gave a breakdown of offences committed with a firearm. In 2004, she said, 7 per cent of the 234 persons arrested for fire arm offences were on bail. Also the majority of violent crimes committed that year were with a firearm.

She gave statistics of where ballistic analysis confirmed that a single firearm was linked to multiple incidents, i.e., armed robberies, shootings, murders and grievous harm. In fact, she went into greater detail than did Mr Turnquest at the recent Rotary meeting.

It was for this reason that at that time her government was amending the criminal law, specifically the Bail Act-- as the Ingraham government will be doing when parliament reconvenes next week. The 2006 Bill, which Mrs Gibson proposed, provided for appeal to the Court of Appeal by either the prosecutor or the person convicted where bail was either granted or refused by the Supreme Court.

She felt that the right of the prosecution to appeal on the issue of bail was 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."

For anyone not to understand what an impact these repeat offenders are having on our society - and not to appreciate that they could not commit these crimes without the court's bail -- they would have to be deaf, blind, and live on another planet.

We often wonder if some of our judiciary -- and this includes certain defence lawyers -- are indeed living on another planet, as they seem to have failed to appreciate the lawlessness that surrounds them.

The judiciary needed a wake-up call. Mr Turnquest gave it, and in this he has the full support of The Tribune.

As for Mr Hanna -- and like thinkers -- we invite them to ponder the words of the learned Law Lord, the late Lord Bingham, a former Lord Chief Justice of England:

"...I do not consider it would be right," he said, "even if it were possible, for judges to ignore the opinion of the public. They do not live the lives of hermits; they are also conscious that the gift of infallibility is not conferred on them, alone among mortals.

"So when differences of opinion arise between judges and an identifiable body of public opinion, the judges are bound to reflect whether it may be that the public are right and they are wrong."

September 29, 2011

tribune242 editorial