The Cabinet is to seek further consultations on the provisions of the Law Reform (Notice of Alibi Evidence) bill after Government and Opposition MPs raised objections to the provisions in the House last Tuesday.

The bill’s Memorandum of Objects and Reasons points out that where an accused person intends to rely on a defence of alibi, the non-disclosure of that defence by the accused person before trial places the prosecution at a distinct disadvantage because of the difficulties in anticipating and disproving such a defence.

The bill, therefore, seeks to provide that on indictment before a judge of the Supreme Court sitting with or without a jury, notice of an intention to adduce evidence in support of an alibi shall be given to the prosecution by the accused within 14 days of his arraignment or such longer period as the court permits; the particulars of the alibi, including names and addresses, must be included in the notice; when no notice is given, an accused person shall only, with the leave of the court, be allowed to adduce evidence in support of an alibi; and any interview which is conducted with an alibi witness shall only be done with the consent in writing of the accused person and in the presence of an attorney-at-law.

But Opposition spokesman on justice Delroy Chuck felt that the bill could provide an opportunity for the Crown to determine whether there was an alibi witness and to interview defence witnesses.

“The defence cannot interview the prosecution’s witnesses, and if the defence can’t interview the prosecution’s witnesses, I don’t see why we should even allow that opportunity for the prosecution to interview the defence’s witnesses,” Chuck said.

His Opposition colleague, Clive Mullings, said that the legislation needed further review and that, while the intent was good, “we are running the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water”.

Government member KD Knight said he had never felt comfortable with the act and what it was seeking to achieve. He questioned why the accused should assist the prosecution to prove his own guilt.

“Any assistance to the prosecution in relation to guilt must come from a plea,” said Knight. “When called upon, the accused persons say ‘guilty’, that’s assisting the prosecution, but that is as far as it should go.”

He suggested more consideration be given to the provisions.

The debate was suspended to allow for further consultation on the bill.