Dear Editor,

Reference is made to your editorial of May 27, 2016 under the headline ‘There is need for a tougher Bail Act’.

I do not agree that there is need for a tougher Bail Act. As it is, the Bail Act ,by its compendious provisions, is quite adequate to deal with all cases where bail has to be considered.

To begin with, where the offence charged is serious and the allegations strong and sustainable, no judge, that I know, grants bail in a perfunctory manner. Submissions from counsel in support of and in opposition to the grant of bail to a person so accused are carefully considered.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, the judge exercises his/her discretion consistent with the provisions of the Bail Act, and the principles distilled from the reported cases concerning the grant or refusal of bail. Keep in mind also that, ultimately, each case must be assessed on its own merits.

The cases you cited of accused people who reoffended while on bail, while having a high emotive quotient, should be contrasted with the overwhelming majority who do not reoffend while on bail.

Have you considered those individuals who have been charged with serious offences, denied bail and made to languish in jail for years, and acquitted after trial?

The presumption of innocence still remains a bulwark of the criminal law.

That is why my preference is to leave the matter of bail to the discretion of the judge and not to the meddling of overwrought legislators who always want to be seen as doing something effective by trying to plug anything they consider to be a loophole.

Patrick Delano Bailey

patrick.bailey@btalawjm.com