Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5 My co host is in the building. Andisa west. And guess what? She was early.
[00:00:13] Speaker B: I feel as though being early is the norm and being late is the exception. Once or twice.
[00:00:19] Speaker C: That's not.
[00:00:20] Speaker A: I can't ever remember you being early.
I just thinking. Are you trying to remember when last year was early? Oh, the last time you was here, it was late, right?
[00:00:28] Speaker B: Yeah, I remember any time before that late. The time before that I was really.
[00:00:34] Speaker A: I can't remember that I had a talking security downstairs. But my co host on a Friday, she's not a guest, she's my co host. And this segment is known as Justice. This is where we talk law. And I want to remind persons that most of the questions that you may have that you may ask us is all generica. The. The advice, remember the. They have to know your case, know your story in order to give you comprehensive advice on your matter. But in the interim, generic advice can be given. You can learn something as to how to mitigate and navigate through legal things in your life. Even if it's a land dispute. Well, you know what going on with agency. No. When you're dead, find big money to transfer. So. Good morning, ladies. How are you? Thank you very much. Ms.
Roberto, is it?
[00:01:13] Speaker C: Good morning, Davey, how are you? Good morning.
[00:01:16] Speaker A: Turn it a little bit right.
[00:01:18] Speaker C: Good morning, everyone.
[00:01:19] Speaker A: Yeah, you good?
[00:01:20] Speaker C: I'm good.
[00:01:21] Speaker A: You ain't so good. Song like you had cold girl I.
[00:01:24] Speaker C: Feel like I get in it.
[00:01:25] Speaker A: Stay right there, please.
All right, Stay down. Wind stay on that side.
[00:01:29] Speaker B: Smashing up everybody, to be honest.
[00:01:31] Speaker A: Well, I know you had it and you couldn't even make it to work.
[00:01:33] Speaker C: No, honestly, she couldn't.
[00:01:34] Speaker A: She couldn't.
[00:01:35] Speaker B: Honestly. That was the worst.
[00:01:36] Speaker C: My.
[00:01:36] Speaker B: I actually have a little cousin and she was in the hospital because of it. It was terrible. It was a b. She's a baby. Oh, well, which is why.
[00:01:43] Speaker C: Yeah, well.
[00:01:43] Speaker A: Okay. Well, everybody's okay, right?
[00:01:45] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
[00:01:46] Speaker A: Well, that's nice. So, ladies, we talking sufficiency hearing? What is a sufficiency hearing?
But before you get to that part, I have a question. What is a prima facie case? What is that?
[00:01:57] Speaker C: Well.
[00:01:57] Speaker A: Or prima facie here. Why is that?
[00:02:00] Speaker C: So? A prima facie case is the aspect of.
Well, in simple terms, the court has to be satisfied that there's evidence, some evidence to substantiate the charge that has been laid against you. The threshold for someone to be found guilty for a criminal criminal offense is beyond a Reasonable doubt. That is the burden on the state. The state must prove every charge, every offense that accused person is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the test for a prima facie case. For a prima facie case to be established, the court must be satisfied that there is some sort of evidence. So it doesn't have to be strong evidence. In these circumstances, we're not talking about the weight or the strength of the evidence, but once there's evidence to substantiate the offense that the person is before the court.
[00:02:56] Speaker A: So when the charges are laid.
[00:02:58] Speaker C: Yes.
[00:02:59] Speaker A: A prima facie case is made out. Could be made out, yes. And this is a hearing that comes before a magistrate.
[00:03:05] Speaker C: Yes. So it's a. Well, no, yeah. It used to be before the magistrate for serious matters, indictable offenses. Now it goes straight to the high court before master.
[00:03:15] Speaker A: Yeah, so it goes before master.
[00:03:17] Speaker C: Yes.
[00:03:17] Speaker A: And this, this hearing on this particular court date is just for the.
For the state or the prosecution to.
[00:03:23] Speaker C: Prove a prima facie case, which in.
[00:03:27] Speaker A: Essence I like to talk for the man in taxi to understand, which in essence means to prove that they could continue with the case. Yes.
[00:03:33] Speaker C: That they could substantiate the offense, that there is evidence in relation to the offense.
[00:03:38] Speaker A: But isn't that a for mentioned situation?
What is for mentioned then?
[00:03:43] Speaker C: So usually for mention is a term that you would usually hear like a case management, a status update. You put the matter on a date to mention the matter or to call the matter to determine what's going. Not necessarily. It's specifically different because we have legislation under. It's called a JIPA that was passed in December 2023.
It's the administration of Justice Indictable Proceedings act that was passed in December 2023 that governs specifically how you treat with sufficiency hearings.
Oh, oh yeah, yes.
[00:04:23] Speaker B: So it's so for mentioned is, you know, you just go to court and they would determine if there was disclosure, give us directions, give directions. But the sufficiency hearing is something different and something very intentional where the state would have to put forward. Now it isn't where they actually call in the persons to give evidence.
It's kind of like a paper committal and from that to determine if there's sufficient evidence to move forward.
[00:04:49] Speaker A: That is the prima facie.
[00:04:51] Speaker C: Yes.
So but there's a step by step process that must be followed. So under the legislation, when the person is charged and we are talking specifically for serious matters, as you heard me mention, indictable matters, that is the most serious matters, such as rape, attempted Murder, murder and those sorts of things. So when the person is charged for that serious matter, it could be either way. Some matters, for example robbery, possession of drugs, could be heard either in the High Court or, or the Magistrates Court. So those matters, once they're laid indictably, you would hear that term a lot of time. The charge is laid indictably and not called upon to plead. So the matter goes before the master in the High Court and at that first hearing it's called the initial hearing of the matter where the charge is read to the person.
If it's an either way matter, it's up to the prosecution to indicate whether they are recommending summary trial, meaning transfer the matter back to the, transfer the matter to the district Court, the magistrates Court or the proceeding as laid, meaning they proceed in indictably before the High Court. So that is the, the responsibility of the prosecution. Now before under the old system it used to be an election put to the accused person. So in the Magistrates Court the person used to be given the election to say whether or not they prefer to have their matter heard upstairs in the High Court before a judge and, or jury or in the Magistrates Court. So when the person comes, as I mentioned, there is that initial hearing where it is the charges read to the person.
The master would also tell the person deal with the issue of bail, where they can make an application for bail as the case may be.
And then they also give directions for certain things to be done, that is the initial hearing process. So they do what is called a scheduling order, basically outlining the prosecution to submit the file to the DPP by a particular day, the prosecution to file all their statements. Because remember the burden is always on the state to prove. Therefore when the court gives that direction, the prosecution has that duty to comply with the order of the court filing all the documents. And now the indictment is filed before under the old system you, you used to have the preliminary inquiry and then when it's completed the committal bundle or the bundle of evidence is sent to the DPP's office and then the DPP would file the indictment, which can take some time. Now the indictment has to be filed before the sufficiency hearing is completed, well before it's even conducted.
So when Nat Master gives the scheduling order with the directions, the defense also has the opportunity to file evidential objections, file witness statements in the matter. So it's like you're front, loading the case up front. So everybody know what case, what is the case that has to be met and then you have what is called the sufficiency hearing. At the sufficiency hearing is where the master would look at the evidence that is in the form of the statement. So everything is documentary. If it is, the witness doesn't swear or doesn't give a statement, then the legislation also allows for the party to call the witness to give oral testimony that is under section 19 of the Act. But most times the witnesses give their statement. There are legislative procedures. The statement must be signed, it must be sworn, it must be typewritten. Because as attorneys, defense attorneys, we usually have a difficult time understanding these handwriting of these police officers sometimes.
But those are the things that has to be done up front. And then add the sufficiency hearing. Once the master has gone through the evidence and the state has tendered these statements, meaning put it into evidence. Once there is compliance with the proper procedure and the master is satisfied that there is evidence, they would say, I'm satisfied that there's a prima facie case to answer. And then they would transfer the matter, which is called the committal proceedings. They would transfer the matter from. For a judge, where the person can elect to have a judge alone. Trial or judge and jury.
[00:09:11] Speaker B: Yeah. So that's essentially the entire new process and that's common. Does the change from the previous preliminary inquiries?
[00:09:19] Speaker C: Yes. So before we had the preliminary inquiry in the Magistrates Court, where all matters, whether serious or minor matters, would start in the Magistrates Court, so even these indictable matters would have gone to the magistrate and you would have had a preliminary, preliminary inquiry or what you call a PI in the Magistrates Court, where the prosecution would call their witnesses, the accused person would have the opportunity to cross examine these witnesses and then that after the conclusion of that process with the evidence being heard, the magistrate would then determine the same thing. Like the master, if there's a case to answer prima facie case and send it to the High Court for trial.
However, the cross examination process has been eliminated under the new system.
So there's no cross examination of witnesses at the sufficiency hearing stage, unless the witness is coming to give oral testimony. As I mentioned under section 19, it's just a formality of the statements, looking at the statements on the face of it to determine if there's evidence and the matter is transferred. So at the trial stages, where the accused person would get the opportunity to cross examine all the witnesses in the matter.
[00:10:36] Speaker B: Yeah. So previously the preliminary inquiry would have been like a trial before the trial itself?
[00:10:41] Speaker C: Sort of. Yes. Yeah.
[00:10:42] Speaker B: So you feel as though with the new changes, with the sufficiency hearings that it's helped move along some of the cases for that fit to be a bit quicker to help with the delay in our criminal justice.
[00:10:54] Speaker C: Definitely it has significantly helped with the delay.
For example, we have completed matters that where persons were charged in 2001, 2002 and the trial has been completed. I remember last year the person was charged, I think 2002, we were in 2025. So it's in a matter for three year period under GIPA from charge to completion. The matter was completed. Under the old system sometimes you would take three, four years just for the PI. Then you wait another few years for the indictment and then the person comes up for trial. So you used to hear people inside and they still do have a lot of persons especially who would have been caught under the old system in custody for several years. Because I have a client right now, he's been in custody since 2009. Yeah. Which is before a Jippa. So it's.
The process has significantly streamlined and it's moving a lot. Masters are moving a lot faster now. But there are still persons in the system who have been charged and there for a long time.
[00:12:03] Speaker B: Yeah. Because I do know one or two persons who was caught under the old system and now they are just waiting for the indictment, which sometimes takes a while.
[00:12:12] Speaker C: Correct.
[00:12:13] Speaker B: And your matter is not moving forward until you actually get that.
[00:12:15] Speaker C: That's correct, yeah.
[00:12:16] Speaker B: And then with the scheduling order, because you indicated that there would be a scheduling order with strict deadlines to follow and I know under the legislation 5.95.
[00:12:26] Speaker C: C. Yes, under the Criminal Procedure Rules.
So a JIPA is not in isolation. You have the criminal Procedure Rules 2023 which provides guidelines or rules governing the system. So it's not limited to a jpa. It's generally Criminal Procedure rules governing matters flowing through the criminal justice system. But there's a section 59 which specific deals focuses on a dripper and whether or not master could discharge the matter.
So.
[00:13:04] Speaker A: All right, let's take a quick phone call. Hello? Who's there?
[00:13:06] Speaker D: Good morning, David.
[00:13:08] Speaker A: Good morning.
[00:13:08] Speaker D: I'm listening to.
I'm listening to what is being said and there's something that has dawned on me. I've often heard it said that there are some persons who are on remand that have been there for time longer than it would take if they were convicted.
If they were convicted, they would have less years than their own remand. And one of the things that I'm talking about here, it really doesn't fall under her portfolio but under the dpp.
Why doesn't the DPP just issue what is called a null prosecutor? You're not going to prosecute this person anymore and just free the person because that just keeps staying there and clogging up the system. And the system is clogged up with this matter to be called. And I find that that is really and truly, you know, overburdening the system for no reason at all since the person may have already served more time on remand that they would have gotten if they had pleaded guilty or found guilty. Thank you, Alison.
[00:14:07] Speaker C: And that is, that is a real issue that persons face, as I mentioned earlier, having a client inside since 2009, he's charged for the offense of murder. And we all know that the presumption of innocence. The state has to prove its case, but he's now caught in the system where he has to wait until he could get his trial date. Yeah, likewise, there are several other persons who are inside. But he's the caller is correct that it's a matter for the director of Public Prosecution to assess the case, assess the evidence in the case to determine whether or not this is a matter that can be tried in these circumstances and successfully. So. But the thing is, unfortunately, our constitution does not provide for a speedy trial. It provides for a fair trial. So there's no right to have a trial within a certain time. Now, I may have my personal views on that, but that is the law. And because I'm thinking, you know, are.
[00:15:08] Speaker A: We going to compromise speed for efficiency and effectiveness? I don't want somebody because of a speedy trial, found guilty or innocent.
Yes, we hustling to run through this thing and you know, we miss certain things.
[00:15:20] Speaker C: But at the same time, everybody would want to have their, the matter ventilated before the court sooner rather than later because delay always impacts a trial. Sometimes witnesses die. It can't find witnesses. Now the law makes provision for those things. But then if the, if the, if a key witness dies, the accused person doesn't have the opportunity to cross examine that person or to test the evidence reliably at trial. Obviously the court will have to direct the jury or themselves if it's a judge alone, as it relates to how to treat with that evidence as well as you.
With time, people tend to forget. So in terms of memory and even accused persons, they may have defense witnesses and their defense witnesses may not be available, they may have migrated or as well have died. And unlike the prosecution where witness statements are usually taken during the investigation stage, the accused person doesn't have that benefit in all the circumstances. Sometimes they may be unrepresented at the beginning and stuff like that. So delay has its negative impact not only for the accused person who has to wait and have this matter hanging over their head, especially if they're in custody, but as well as the victims because they would want closure in, in, in those matters.
[00:16:41] Speaker B: Yeah, and I think we should also separate bringing the matter before the court and then the trial itself. So you're not necessarily saying that the trial itself has to be quick and, and you know, affect the competence of the trial is that if this person is charged they should be brought before the court within a specific time.
[00:16:59] Speaker C: But that happens.
[00:17:00] Speaker A: That was my next month. That was my next question to you guys. A person is charged, police arrest somebody and they're charged with murder.
[00:17:06] Speaker C: Yeah.
[00:17:06] Speaker A: All right. How soon after the charges are laid they are brought to court?
[00:17:11] Speaker C: Once a person is charged, meaning if I'm charged this morning, the law says that the person must be brought immediately or as reasonably, as reasonably practicable before the court. So it shouldn't be I'm charged today, I'm going to court, what Monday, Tuesday? It should be that I should be, if I'm charged this morning, I should be brought sometime before the court today.
Cuz court sits from nine till four.
[00:17:40] Speaker A: All right, so if I'm charged now before four, I should be brought before court to answer these charges.
[00:17:46] Speaker C: That is correct.
[00:17:46] Speaker A: After I come before the court. We're dealing with a non indictable offenser. Hello. Good morning.
[00:17:52] Speaker D: Hello. Morning.
[00:17:53] Speaker A: Good morning.
[00:17:54] Speaker D: Yeah, my sister said why the standard bring back section to the when they could say 10 years and things Because Asian keeps on going already so I don't see why they could bring it back. And this is some. Thank you.
[00:18:10] Speaker C: Well, when you look at a jippa in terms of these serious matters, it is geared towards a speedy resolution of the matter. So when you see the timelines, for example, at the initial hearing the accused person is told or given an alibi warning, meaning they are told that they have to file an alibi notice within 28 days if they are relying on alibi. So that has to be done within 28 days alternatively before the sufficiency hearing. Because if you try to rely on alibi later on you'll have to get permission from the judge if you don't do it within a timely manner. Likewise, the prosecution is given certain timelines and those timelines are not a year off. They're usually given from my experience, within a three month period where they have to get these Statements filed and served before the court. So when you look at the intention of a GIPA and how it's supposed to operate, the sufficiency hearing ought to be completed within a year from the person being charged, ideally. Now, it doesn't always work like that in practice because the court always have the discretion under the rules, for example, to they may grant an extension because the both sides under the act are allowed to make an application supported by evidence for an extension of time if necessary in these circumstances. So you can't just come and say, well, I am not ready. I need time. You must put evidence before the court. For example, you want vacation leave, you on sick leave, as the case may be, or this witness is hospitalized, and you need additional time to get the evidence before the court.
So the court does have the discretion to grant an extension of time once they are satisfied that there's evidence to support the application.
But all things being equal, it is supposed to happen within a reasonable time. And we're not talking about three, four years down the road. So with this new process, it is geared towards a speedy resolution of the matter.
[00:20:20] Speaker A: All right, so I like that. But the thing is, when a person is arrested and they are charged, they're taken before the court and then they are given another date.
So you're charged with murder or larceny, motor vehicle larceny. Walk me through the process. You go to court on that first hearing, you get a lawyer.
[00:20:41] Speaker C: All right, so let's, let's that first.
[00:20:42] Speaker A: Hearing when you go.
[00:20:43] Speaker C: Right. So remember I was mentioning earlier, the initial hearing, we charge for murder. You go before the court and the charge is read to you. If you are unrepresented, the court does an inquiry. They inquire from you whether or not you need an opportunity to get counsel. Counsel, you could have the option whether you want to do it privately or under the act, the court could make an order for the chief public defender to assign a public defender. So last week you would have heard me mention that part of our responsibility in the department is doing sufficiency hearing.
So all these matters that come straight to the master, they make the order, and one of us in the department is assigned to deal with the matter or represent the person. Now, mind you, for murder charge, the person is assigned initially a duty counsel. So from the time the person is arrested for murder at the police station, the police officers are required to contact the legal aid and advisory authority because it's a very serious offense. The most serious, that they would contact the legal aid and advisory authority and they would assign what is called a duty counsel to the person. That duty counsel is free of charge. That attorney would go to the station, meet with the the person, the suspect, advise the person of their rights and so forth. And then they are usually required to appear at the first hearing. Now on how the legislation works, because when that person appears at the first hearing, if they are unrepresented, the court has to ensure that they have the legal representation. So they are given the opportunity to indicate whether they want it privately. If not, the court makes the order. The order comes to the chief public defender and then the chief public defender signs one of us. So representation is dealt with at the initial hearing. Also, the court can deal with the issue of bail. Now we know under the amendment to the Bail act in 2024 that persons can apply for bail for murder, but there must be exceptional circumstances. Now, there's a current debate going on and amendments, so I wouldn't go further into that. And we also awaiting a court of appeal judgment as it relates to what can amount to exceptional circumstances.
But beside that, the issue of bail is usually dealt with at the initial hearing. So the person is before the master. Then the court also inquires from the. The prosecution is there, the court.
[00:23:23] Speaker A: This is on the first hearing, the first hearing. First any person appear in court initial.
[00:23:26] Speaker C: Hearing talking about a murder charge, a murder charge before the master. The court also makes the direction police or the state to file their statements by a particular date. Right.
[00:23:41] Speaker A: These statements are witness statements.
[00:23:43] Speaker C: So the statements that they would have taken from witnesses, whether police officers who were engaged in the investigation process, whether it's eyewitnesses, relatives of the deceased person, there's usually forensic evidence, post mortem certificate, post mortem report as it relates to cause of death and those sorts of things. Right.
So there, there is a deadline that is given to the state to file all those things, including the indictment.
Those things have to be disclosed, meaning it has to be given to the defense so that the accused person and his counsel know what the evidence is in the case to be able to advise the accused person, this is the case that is against you and take instructions relative to the evidence that relates to the charge.
So the direction is also given for the defense for disclosure, a date when those things have to be handed over to the defense and the defense is also given an opportunity to respond. So the court would give directions or order the defense to file any evidential objections that they may need to file to file any witnesses or witness statements that they intend to rely on by a particular Date. So this direction or this deadline is usually after they receive. So let's say for example, the court makes the order for the state. The person goes before the court today and the master hears the matter at the initial hearing and gives the order prosecution to file all statements and indictment Today is what, the 6th by the 13th of March.
That is relatively a month, five weeks from now. Right.
And thereafter the pro, the defense is giving time. So they may give the defense a time in April so that they would have enough time to review the evidence, meet with the client, take instructions to file and then they would set the matter for a sufficiency hearing date that is convenient to all the parties.
[00:25:52] Speaker A: So that initial hearing goes from, from there to a sufficiency hearing. Yes, which is which, which has a stipulated six week period. Or they could tell you four months down the road.
[00:26:02] Speaker C: Yes. Well, we have in, in recent times we've been getting matters like in 2025 we were getting matters hearings in 2026 because courts, the amount of matters before.
[00:26:12] Speaker A: The court realistically, and during that time that person is in, in custody for murder.
[00:26:18] Speaker C: Yes, but they can apply for bail.
[00:26:21] Speaker A: Because it's available offense.
[00:26:22] Speaker C: Yes, they can apply for bail and once they get the bail then they can be attending court from outside.
[00:26:29] Speaker A: All right, now what is the difference between a dictable and indictable?
So what makes it indictable? What is indictable? What is it?
[00:26:39] Speaker C: Okay, so indictable is what I would have said earlier, are serious offenses.
So you have summary offenses either way offenses and indictable offenses.
An example of a summary offense, obscene language, resisting arrest. Those are minor matters, matters that are dealt with in the magistrates court summarily. Meaning it's a small matter. It's not all matters are serious breach of the law at the end of the day, but they are tiered, they are different levels. So you have the small offenses, AKAS case as we call it, in the Magistrates Court, which are dealt with in the various magistrates court. Then you have either way offenses which are matters that could be heard either in the Magistrates Court, as the name suggests, either in the Magistrates Court or in the High Court. Some of these offenses, as I said earlier, would be like robbery, possession of drugs and those sorts of things. So it could go either way. Indictable matters are the really serious matters that must be heard or tried in the High Court.
So those would include for example murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and those other serious offences, fraud matters and stuff like that.
[00:28:03] Speaker A: Those are indictable.
[00:28:04] Speaker C: Indictable meaning.
[00:28:05] Speaker A: So summary Offenses is basically dictable. You plead no.
[00:28:09] Speaker C: So summary offenses mean minor offenses at the end of the day, for a summary offense, if I go before the courts for a CUS case, I am given the opportunity to plead. I could plead guilty or not guilty, but indictable.
[00:28:21] Speaker A: But what are the parameters that governs or what are the threshold to say? Well, I reach the threshold beyond this is, is in, that isn't so.
[00:28:29] Speaker C: So it depends. Now, each offense is, is based in law, so it could be either through common law. For example, the offense of murder is common law, meaning it's not offense created by statute, but it was created by common law because we were under British rule and stuff like that. It has been there since time immemorial. However, there are certain offences that are contained in the statute. For example possession of drugs, there's a Dangerous Drugs act which governs those offenses. So the legislation or the law would say how the charges lead. So they could say. So there are some provisions in the legislation that could say the matter could be treated summarily or it could be treated indictably. So it depends on where the person, how the person is charged, the provision under which, or the law under which the person is charged will determine whether the matter could be heard in the Magistrates Court, whether the matter could be heard in the High Court. As I said before, there's the difference before, for either way offenses, the matter would have gone to the magistrate and the accused person would usually choose where they want the matter to be heard. Now, for indictable matters, and either way matters, it goes straight to the master. And the prosecution is the one who would say whether or not they are recommending the matter to be heard in the High Court or District Court, because they are the ones in possession of the evidence, they would know the case that has to be met. So they are the ones who now would be making the recommendation.
[00:30:07] Speaker A: And it's a recommendation, it could be denied?
[00:30:10] Speaker C: Well, most times based upon the recommendation, the master would either transfer the matter based upon the recommendation, but the process.
[00:30:17] Speaker A: Is a long winded one. Meaning that the person stays in custody?
[00:30:21] Speaker C: No, the person can apply for bail.
[00:30:24] Speaker A: But if they're not, if they're unable.
[00:30:25] Speaker C: If they're not granted bail, then the person remains in custody.
[00:30:28] Speaker A: And if they are unable to meet.
[00:30:30] Speaker C: The, if they are unable to access the bail that is given, they could make an application before the court to vary the bail. Meaning, for example, the person has been inside for six months and they cannot access the bail.
I have done several bail variations. So for Example, the bail was 250,000. With approval, the man remained.
[00:30:52] Speaker A: What is that? What does that mean?
[00:30:53] Speaker C: So for that, for example, if someone is granted bail, the court can say, I want this to be approved by the registrar. Now there are different persons in the judiciary that would deal with the processing of bail. So in the magistrates court you have magistracy registrars, in the high court you have registrars as well. High court registrars. Now they are the ones who would normally deal with the administrative aspect of things.
And before, what you used to have is the JP in the court who would. Or the clerk of the peace who would approve the bail. So long time used to hear bail to be approved by the clerk of the peace. Now you hear bail to be approved by the registrar, meaning the person who is going to stand as surety or take the person's bail. If I am going to take, let's say Andesa's bail, God forbid, she's charged with an offense and she has to get bail and I am taking the responsibility to take her bail, then I have to put forward certain documents before the court for it to be approved before I can be approved as her surety. So that's what they mean by bail with approval.
[00:32:03] Speaker A: What other forms form of Bailey can get deal with approval? Bill?
[00:32:07] Speaker C: So there's bail with charity names, surety, meaning. So instead of me having to go before the court and put forward certain documents such as deeds and those sorts of things, get a valuation report.
Yes, it's a. It's a process very unlikely unless you submit the documents beforehand for prior approval by the registrar, it's very unlikely. So there's bail with surety as well. For example, I could appear before the court when she's charged and the court could make certain inquiries of me. Or I could do a statutory declaration outlining my assets. I have employed, I have a house, I have a vehicle, etc. And I don't have any criminal charges, I'm not known to the police, those sorts of things. And the court could be satisfied that I am an appropriate surety and they would take my identification card number, either your ID card number or your DP number, and they would put you as named surety. So that circumvents the process where you need to get approval by the registrar. There's also cash bail as an alternative as well, where a sum is deposited into the court and it is held there as security until the matter is completed.
[00:33:28] Speaker A: So if cash bail, if they ask for 50,000, you're paying 50,000?
[00:33:31] Speaker C: Yes, via check to the registrar.
[00:33:33] Speaker A: And they hold that 50 until the matter is. But that'll be a manager's check.
[00:33:37] Speaker C: Yes, that's correct.
[00:33:38] Speaker A: Right. So they get. You get a manager's check from the bank.
[00:33:40] Speaker C: Yes.
[00:33:40] Speaker A: And that could happen same day too.
[00:33:41] Speaker C: Yes.
[00:33:42] Speaker A: Or. But so that to prevent you from going into prison overnight.
[00:33:45] Speaker C: Yes, that is a possibility.
[00:33:46] Speaker A: And those are the three options for bail?
[00:33:48] Speaker C: Yes. Sometimes for minor offenses, you could get what is called own bail. Yeah, you very rarely get that for indictable and serious offenses.
[00:33:57] Speaker A: So own bail comes out.
[00:33:58] Speaker C: Own bail is basically the courts assessing the summary of evidence in the matter. Because the Bail act as well as the criminal procedure rules outline certain factors, primarily the Bail act, certain factors. You have to take into account the person antecedents, meaning their criminal record, their social ties to the community and those sorts of things.
And they could say, well, in these circumstances, I do not consider you a flight risk. And there are no allegations that you would commit an offense while in bail. Or there are no allegations that you would interfere with state witnesses in these circumstances. So I'll give you your own bail, meaning the person signed for themselves. Now, a sum is attached to that. So they might say own bail, any sum of $10,000. It doesn't mean that you have to pay the $10,000. But if you skip court or your fields at 10 court, they will call upon you to say why? For you to answer why we should not hold you accountable to pay that $10,000. But basically on bill is you signing responsibility.
[00:34:58] Speaker A: Now, if in some instances, and this is from Texas, where you get bail and you stand bail for Andesa.
[00:35:05] Speaker C: Yes.
[00:35:05] Speaker A: I pick up Andesa and say, gilbert, busy tape your house, your car, your land. And she and I go and we bust out. We in Dubai.
[00:35:14] Speaker C: Right.
[00:35:14] Speaker A: Can't find me Ms. Court. We want it. She wanted no. What happens to you?
[00:35:19] Speaker C: So as the surety, I.
And that. That is a huge responsibility for anyone taking bail, I would now be responsible to answer to the court and they. They would issue what is called a summons to show cause. Yeah. Which is basically summonsing me as a surety before the court to answer why it is I should not be held accountable, why I shouldn't lose my property that I put up for an Lisa. Why it is shouldn't be held accountable to pay this two hundred and something thousand dollars that I may have bound myself to. Because it's basically an undertaking to take responsibility for this person to show up in court.
[00:35:58] Speaker B: Right.
[00:35:59] Speaker A: But what defense you could have. Now you trying to call Andesa and right.
[00:36:03] Speaker C: So that's why at the hearing the person has to explain themselves. It's a summons, it's a. To show cause, meaning you have to show cause why it is you should not be held accountable for all these things. But it's at the discretion of the judicial officer conducting the hearing whether you were held accountable in the situation.
[00:36:23] Speaker A: Well, give an example as to how they're going to hold you accountable because what you just telling me here, this is subjected to me how I feel on that day. I watch you mean like how you look, I listen to you telling me, well, I know I didn't know where she went. I was trying to call her and she never answered. So so they, everybody will come with that story.
[00:36:38] Speaker C: So that's why it's important. So I have seen persons put before the court or even come before the court before the court even issues a summons and say, well I cannot get on to this person and I want to be removed as the surety. So some of them do take in front if they realize that the person that they stood for shaken them running off and they, they cannot find the.
[00:37:03] Speaker A: Person, that, that, that doesn't make sense.
Because if you're telling me I have to stand bail for you and I am taking a responsibility to bail you out and then you skip town and then I could come back and say, well listen, I can't find them, you know, so take me off and just you all right, you can't find them and I take you off.
[00:37:20] Speaker C: So it's not automatic. As I said before, it's a hearing and it has to be based upon the evidence that is put forward. So the person may bring telephone records and say, well I tried reaching out to this person 15 times and I have been unable. I went to the person's address where I know the person lives and I have not been able to find this person. So you would have to show substantial reason why it is, you should not be held accountable because you, when you take that bail, that is the risk you are taking.
[00:37:52] Speaker A: Right. So you bring that evidence and I am quite certain I would bring it and everybody would bring that I got WhatsApp is a good thing. You know, I've been whatsapping, whatsapping, whatsapping. I send in WhatsApp calls. I ringing your phone, I could print it out by digital otstt and I bring it to court and then I could video call my video record myself walking by your house and calling. You're calling me at 2 o' clock in the morning, 1 o' clock in the day, can't find you. All that could be done. I can have a neighbor tell me. Well, they didn't see you neither for a while. And then the court says, what next? I still subjected to a judicial officer, which I find is wrong.
[00:38:24] Speaker C: Well, that simply means responsibility. Yeah, you. You take on.
[00:38:28] Speaker A: Right. But I take. But what. What I'm getting at is that I can get out of it once I could provide reasonable cause as to why I should no longer be held responsible because I can't find you. I think the issue of bail, and I'm not saying this lightly, is that if you skip that person, skip you ought to be paid. Now, if you could really show something out outside of the box why you shouldn't be held accountable, I could go with that.
But what you just said there is normal thing. People will disappear.
[00:39:00] Speaker C: They're trying. And it's all that normal. It all depends on here.
[00:39:02] Speaker A: Nothing reasonable that is expected.
I expect you to try to call the person because it's your property up for. Up for grabs. Now, you're gonna be homeless, so I expect you're going to reach out.
[00:39:11] Speaker B: But the court will obviously consider all the evidence. It isn't just that on this day I tried calling this person five times. The court would want to know how much times, how much days, how much effort you actually no here it isn't automatic from that that they would say, okay, fine, you're off the hook.
[00:39:24] Speaker A: Well, that's my point. But I still subjected. My point. I'm getting.
[00:39:27] Speaker C: I'm still.
[00:39:28] Speaker A: You still vetoing everything. You still making a decision you ain't got. But here they think there's no legislation providing threshold for it judicial officer. Well, that's what I say.
[00:39:36] Speaker C: But in everything with any offense, any matter that's before the court, it's about the evidence and the court exercising its discretion based upon the evidence.
[00:39:46] Speaker A: I got that. But every dog and the cat go come and say I can't find you. Now, I know you had to come to court on the 5th, 14th of February, that is next week, Saturday. I'm just saying, right. You are supposed to go to court on the 14th. All right. I'm gonna use a realistic date. The 13th. You're supposed to show up on the 13th. All right. I might call it today. I hear, yeah. And whatever mean bothering you all the time.
[00:40:05] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:40:05] Speaker A: So how I could show the code. I keep calling it. So when I see the 4th, the 13th, and I wake up the morning, I say we are caught this morning, I can't get Here I reach the court to make sure that you're there. Login, whoever it is, you're not there at that time. I panicking, but I wouldn't panic before that. What. Why is that evidential I trying to reach you before? Because what if you. What if you never answer my call before but then you just appear on the day. So.
[00:40:28] Speaker B: So I feel like what we also need to explain is that the first time that the person doesn't appear before the court, the court wouldn't automatically issue a summons for the person to show cause. The first time the person doesn't appear, the court might issue a summons for that defendant if it's becoming a habit. On several occasions, several court dates you have missed, then they would issue a warrant for arrest for that person, for the defendant. And I mean, it's only if they can't really and truly find the person, that's kind of like the last resort when they will issue a summons for the person to show court. So it isn't that you took a name surety for someone, the person doesn't appear one day and then you had to go before the court to explain why the person didn't appear one day.
[00:41:09] Speaker C: Yeah, an arrest.
An arrest warrant could also put a pin there.
[00:41:13] Speaker A: I'll put a pin there and I'll allow you all to clarify for 10 minutes after. And then I know you'll have to go.
The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5. All right, guys, good morning. This is the extended version to justice. They were on time today. But Robin, you know, I kidnapping them a little bit. Let me lose. I would lose you and kidnapping nobody. I asked them kindly to stay back with me for a few minutes just to clear up some issues here as we educate persons on the law and what it means to you. Justice in Trinidad and Tobago. So very quickly, as we're talking about the bail amendments, Andisa brought up the issue as to explain thoroughly how it works. Now, what we got from you is that as you skip so how long.
Okay, you missed the first hearing. You didn't show up. You're bail and disa. And these are somewhere in Dubai. So she didn't show up once, twice. How long before they can actually call you? But before you take that. Hello. Good morning. Quickly.
[00:42:07] Speaker D: Hi, good morning, Mr. Davey.
[00:42:08] Speaker A: Morning.
[00:42:11] Speaker D: This is.
I am a. I am 65 years old.
I just come in late on your program, but I wanted to get a number to get on to these people because I have a serious matter before the.
Before the high court and.
[00:42:25] Speaker A: All right, well, they will give you their numbers. Now, you can go if you do whichever number. Whichever one.
[00:42:29] Speaker C: Yeah, you could come.
[00:42:33] Speaker A: So if you want to pay. You had a call and decent. You're looking for public defense. Yeah. Called?
[00:42:37] Speaker C: No. Which. Which area is he from?
[00:42:40] Speaker A: Which area?
[00:42:41] Speaker D: I am from the Mafican area.
[00:42:45] Speaker C: That's me. Arrow. Yeah. I think the closest office to him would be either south, unless he wants to go to the Arima office.
[00:42:54] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm not sure which office is close to you. South Orimo.
[00:42:57] Speaker D: Yeah, to get us out will be easier for me.
[00:42:59] Speaker A: Okay. San Fernando.
[00:43:01] Speaker C: Right. So the legal aid San Fernando office, take this number is at Harris Street.
One moment. It's at Harris Street, San Fernando. So he could go in at any point in time.
[00:43:15] Speaker A: Harris Street, San Fernando, illegally building.
[00:43:17] Speaker C: It's so he could go in at any point in time and speak with an attorney there. The consultation is $50.
And let me get a contact number for the San Fernando office.
[00:43:31] Speaker A: All right, so you're calling this number, right?
You're ready?
[00:43:34] Speaker D: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[00:43:36] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:43:36] Speaker C: Well, he could. 638-638-638-5522. That's the standard legal aid number.
[00:43:47] Speaker A: 638-5222.
[00:43:50] Speaker C: Yes.
[00:43:50] Speaker D: 5222.
[00:43:52] Speaker C: Right.
[00:43:53] Speaker A: And it's $50 charge for your account, your. Your consultation.
And that's not too much. Not too much.
Right. And you will be able to get some help, but you go to the San Fernando branch at Harris street in San Fernando.
[00:44:06] Speaker D: Harris Street, San Fernando, yes.
[00:44:08] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:44:08] Speaker A: Thank you so much for calling.
[00:44:10] Speaker D: Thank you very much.
[00:44:10] Speaker A: Mr. All right, take care. So, as we wrap the interview or the conversation on justice this morning, we're dealing with the bail and sufficiency hearings. Yes, so.
[00:44:18] Speaker C: So as Andisa was explaining, the person doesn't appear on the first occasion, the court has the discretion whether or not on that first occasion to issue a warrant for that person's arrest, or depending, may issue a summons for the person to appear before the court. If the person is represented, the attorney may, in the circumstances, ask for leave for the person to appear through them. If there's some explanation, perhaps the person may be in hospital or whatever, but in this case, the person has skipped. So the attorney may say, well, I have no contact with my client and I'm in the court's hands.
So the court may adjourn the matter to give the person an opportunity to appear again. And if that person still does not appear, then a warrant for that person's arrest is issued by the court.
The court, in determining Whether to issue a warrant for the person's arrest, looks at the history of the person's attendance, whether or not the person has ever missed court before, they habitually attend and they attend on time and those sorts of things. So those are considerations that the judicial officer will give before issuing a warrant. Once the warrant is issued for the person's arrest, the court can also issue a summons for the person for the bailer who stand a surety to appear before the court to show cause. So there's no set time frame. It all depends the discretion of the judicial officer whether they issue a warrant immediately or give opportunity for the person to appear feeling which there. Once the person does not appear after sufficient attempts has been made, then the.
[00:46:03] Speaker A: Because someone's the baila to come and.
[00:46:06] Speaker C: Because really and truly the bail is supposed to be attending courts and attending courts with the accused person to make sure the person attend court on each and every occasion.
[00:46:14] Speaker A: If the bailer has been attending and the person has been showing up all the time and then all of a sudden the person stops showing up but the baila is there Y it shows that they have been seeking interest in this person and now the person skipped. So they don't automatically take your property.
[00:46:25] Speaker C: No, they don't.
[00:46:26] Speaker A: Have there ever been a situation in this country? Because I know you all deal with case refer to different cases now of.
[00:46:32] Speaker C: The past, I personally have not dealt with that. But there was one occasion when I was in private practice sitting in magistrates court where the magistrate was conducting hearing to show cause and the bailer came and explained and stuff like that.
And in that instance I don't think that they were penalized in any way. There was their property was not interfered with as best as I could recall based upon the explanation and the evidence they give of the attempts and stuff like that their property was not seized any circumstances because they did all that they could.
Yeah.
[00:47:14] Speaker B: And I also dealt with a situation where the court was like this is what is happening. The person isn't appearing and giving you one occasion to get your house in order, get an attorney if you can and on the next occasion you'll have to show cause. So yeah.
[00:47:26] Speaker A: All right, great. Guys, in closing, anything you want to share with the public before you guys go? Because I know you have to go, I'm letting you go. All right, Anything. In closing, Andy services your show.
[00:47:36] Speaker B: Yeah, in closing, I think that is so amazing that we could have persons like Adafia coming in and explaining these different areas of law because I think that some persons don't have Access to justice, access to this legal advice to know that what are the options available.
Last week, when we were on our way out, we were kind of talking about how persons didn't necessarily know of the existence of the public defenders department and also of the competence of the public defenders department to be able to give persons legal advice. I hope that person's actually learned something when they tune in to justice. And thank you so much, Adafia, for coming in for the second time.
[00:48:10] Speaker C: Very willing.
I wasn't sure if you were joking last week, Davey, when you said, I'll see you back next week.
[00:48:17] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And we're joking when we say we'll see you next week. Friday. Godspeed life. You can come back at us. We did much efficiency hearing. There's more. Let's find out what the defense attorneys in this country, what kind of cases you all handle and explain deeper. You know, Andisa is taking a rest, but she's here.
[00:48:33] Speaker C: All right, so guys, just one thing. So in addition to public defenders and sensitizing the public, we also do articles, the legal aid and advisory authority. We do articles simplifying the law. So you all could check out today's Guardian. There's an article.
[00:48:48] Speaker A: What page?
All right, it's in the Guardian.
[00:48:54] Speaker C: About strict liability.
[00:48:56] Speaker A: Strict liability. Yeah, I see the comic strip. That is probably Eric. All right, it's in the Guardian somewhere here. We'll find it. We'll find it. I will look for you before the show. Done. So thank you very much.
[00:49:04] Speaker C: It's on page 25.
[00:49:05] Speaker A: Page three. About 20. Do you have any Guardian? All them pages here. Wait, I don't read so far when I read it.
All right, so it's on page 25. That's right. Ignorance is no excuse. Hey, I saving this. We talk about this next week.
We talking this next week.
[00:49:19] Speaker C: You're trying to get me into Porter Speed and Carnival, right?
[00:49:23] Speaker A: Okay, let me see what's going on.
So, guys, thank you so much. That concludes another edition of Justice. Ignorance is no excuse. Law on strict liability explained the autonomy of the office, the strict liability in daily life and calls for greater awareness. My goodness, I'm so sorry I didn't see this earlier. So next week now?
[00:49:43] Speaker C: I'll think about it. I'll definitely give it a week till.
[00:49:46] Speaker A: I leave this building. You can keep it and bring some clothes. You take a shower and you stay here until next week to cover this. You know the best insight. Instant feedback accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
