AN alleged member of the Clarendon-based Bloods gang on Tuesday grudgingly accepted a court-assigned lawyer after prominent attorney Tom Tavares-Finson, KC, sought and received permission from the court to withdraw his services for non-payment.

Sixty-four-year-old Franklyn Miller is among five alleged members of the gang who are facing charges of illegal possession of firearm, murder, and robbery with aggravation before Supreme Court Judge Justice Vinnette Graham-Allen in the Home Circuit Court in downtown Kingston.

On Tuesday, during a case management hearing which was mainly to settle representation for the various accused, prosecutors indicated that only two accused — Travis Hardy and Miller — did not have attorneys.

Tavares-Finson had sought the court’s permission to withdraw his services from Miller on the basis that he could not take instructions from him as the individuals who had sought to retain him had yet to fulfil their commitment in respect of fees.

The judge, in responding to the attorney, said, “Well, Mr Finson, you know what the rules are… I think you were just helping out the accused because the rules are very clear… no lawyer is obliged to appear or put their name on the record if they are not fully paid.”

To the accused, she said: “The rules say… where you are arrested and charged for an offence and the lawyer says his fee is X, you have to pay the lawyer before he comes to court. He doesn’t have to come to court. Say the lawyer says his fee is $10 and you pay him $2, the lawyer doesn’t have to come to court until you pay the full $10. So yuh can’t pay $2 and expect him to come to court; people on your behalf went to Mr Finson to be your lawyer, paid him something but not even enough for him to talk to you, really. So he is asking the court for permission to withdraw… lawyers don’t work free, yuh can’t go doctor and don’t pay… yuh muss tell yuh people who paying the lawyer that they must pay the lawyer his full fee,” she said.

In granting Finson’s request, the judge — who enquired of the accused whether he knew who was paying his legal fees — was given a mouthful.

“I am 64 years old and I say my lawyer [is] Mr Tom Tavares and I really appreciate Mr Tavares as my attorney. The thing is, I am in custody a year and odd now, Milady, and I have never seen a visitor, I have never spoken to any of my family, I’m even growing locks since I am here in this institution. I am just a patient since I am in this institution,” he said, adding that he has to be taken to two hospitals at least twice monthly because of his “high blood pressure”.

“That’s why the first thing I have to do is make sure you have a lawyer. So the people who getting the lawyer not coming up with his fees at all, they nah help yuh?” the judge stated as she asked Miller whether he could afford a lawyer or not.

“I’m not getting an opportunity to speak to my loved one,” the accused replied.

“That is why you need a lawyer. Apparently the persons getting the lawyer cannot afford to pay Mr Finson what he is asking. My question to you is: Can you afford a lawyer? Do you want this court to get a lawyer for you?”

“I want Mr Tavares to be my lawyer,” the accused man insisted.

“I am asking you: Can you afford a lawyer, the answer is yes or no?” the judge repeated.

“No, Milady,” Miller replied.

“Do you want the court to get you a lawyer?” the judge probed further.

“No, Milady,” Miller replied.

“No? So who going to pay the lawyer for you, you heard what he said, the people who came to him don’t pay him yet, so if you can’t come up with the fess, how yuh going to afford a lawyer?” Justice Graham-Allen queried.

The judge, informing Miller that she was going to grant Tavares-Finson’s request to be released, again asked the accused whether he wanted the court to appoint him an attorney.

Miller grudgingly capitulating, saying, “Yes, Milady.”

On Tuesday, Hardy, who was also without representation, when asked whether he wanted the court to assign him an attorney replied, “Yes, ma’am, let the court do what it has to do.”

Meanwhile, Alex Miller — who would have been the sixth accused — whose whereabouts had been uncertain last week and for whom a bench warrant had been issued, resurfaced on Tuesday.

According to the police, Miller was taken into custody for violating the conditions of his bail. The judge reiterated that Miller should not be granted bail and should remain in custody until the end of the matter, in keeping with her orders last week. However, the whereabouts of the accused Steven Williams, who prosecutors last week said had been granted bail in the parish court prior to the matter being transferred to the Home Circuit Court but took up his bail and “disappeared”, is still uncertain.

A representative for the Crown said Tuesday, the man for whom an official missing person’s report had been logged had “vanished into thin air”. Williams, the court was told, is presumed dead.

The prosecution, in the meantime, indicated that the case file is complete “save and except for” a report from the Communication Forensics and Cybercrime Division. That report, the Crown was told, will not be ready before 60 days.

The matter was subsequently adjourned to January 11, 2023. The prosecution is, in the meantime, to make disclosure of the material to the defence before that date.

All five accused who appeared via Zoom were ordered remanded.

They are implicated in 10 murders committed in the Clarendon area that go as far back as 2017.