DEREK ACHONG
Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
People accused of murder, who did not have the ability to appeal being refused bail before an amendment to the Bail Act last year, will have to reapply under the legislation for a second chance at being released pending trial.
Five Law Lords from the United Kingdom-based Privy Council made the ruling yesterday as they dismissed an appeal brought by murder accused Keros Martin and six police officers, formerly accused of murdering three friends in Moruga in 2011. The group brought the case after applying for bail based on a landmark Privy Council ruling from 2022 and were denied.
In June 2023, appellate judges Nolan Bereaux and Maria Wilson agreed that the Court of Appeal did not have the jurisdiction to hear appeals over judges’ decisions not to grant bail to murder accused.
Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh provided a dissenting judgment in which he expressed the view that he and his Court of Appeal colleagues had the jurisdiction to entertain such appeals. The outcome had little effect on the officers as they were eventually acquitted of the triple murder at the end of their trial in late 2023.
Lord Nicholas Hamblen, who wrote the judgment, did not fault the majority ruling. “For all these reasons, which largely reflect those given by Bereaux JA, the Board agrees with the conclusion reached by the majority of the Court of Appeal,” he said. In the final appeal, Martin’s lawyers, led by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, asked the board to consider whether the Bail (Amendment) Act 2024 had a retroactive effect on cases such as Martin’s, which were considered before it was proclaimed.
The legislation introduced a requirement for people charged with murder and other serious violent crimes to prove “exceptional circumstances” in order to be granted bail by a Judge. It also allowed the Court of Appeal to consider appeals over their being refused bail.
However, Lord Hamblen and his colleagues refused to consider the issue as it was not raised in the local courts and did not involve an error of law made by the Appeal Court. “The short answer to this issue is, however, that in the circumstances where the matter has not been considered or addressed by the Court of Appeal, it would not be appropriate for the Board to do so,” he said.
He also stated that he and his colleagues did not see the need to consider the issue. “It is open to persons in the position of the appellants, who had bail applications refused by the High Court before the 2024 Act came into force, to make a further application under the 2024 Act and to seek to show ‘exceptional circumstances’,” he said.
“There is no need to show a change in circumstances before doing so,” he added. In a press release issued yesterday, the Office of the Attorney General praised the outcome of the appeal as well as the amendment. “The Bail (Amendment) Act 2024 significantly enhanced judicial oversight in bail processes for serious offences, particularly murder, by allowing applications under strict conditions, enabling appeals on bail decisions, and imposing stricter restrictions for repeat offenders and those involved with firearms,” it said.
Martin and the officers were also represented by Kate Temple-Mabe, and Mohammud Hafeez-Baig. The AG’s Office was represented by Rishi Dass, SC, and Sasha Sukhram.
