The London-based Privy Council on Wednesday upheld Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson’s decision to grant bail to alleged drug baron Austin “Ozzie Knowles and four others accused of various drug offences including possession, importation and the supply of dangerous drugs – charges for which the United States is vehemently pursuing extradition.
Lords Slynn of Hadley, Hoffman, Hope of Craighead and Sir Swinton Thomas ruled that the fundamental question was whether the Court of Appeal had any jurisdiction to interfere with the grant of bail that the Supreme Court had issued.
“The Board considers that the Court of Appeal did not have the jurisdiction to set aside the grant of bail on the grounds relied on even if, as the board has held, the Supreme Court has an inherent jurisdiction to grant bail, noted the ruling. “Despite the force of the criticisms made of the learned judge’s reasons for granting bail, neither the board nor the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to set aside [Jeanne] Thompson’s order granting bail.
It is now left to the appropriate authorities to consider what, if any steps, will be taken following the ruling.
In a written ruling, the justices also criticized the judge’s reasoning for granting bail to Knowles and his co-accused.
The Privy Council judgment referred to the affidavits that were filed on behalf of the appellants alleging inhumane and degrading treatment in prison and setting out personal details relating to the individuals as to why they should be released on bail.
The ruling said: “The Board considers that-the learned judge did not appear to give sufficient weight to the nature of the crimes alleged or to the risk of, and the advantage of their fleeing. It is important that in this particular type of case these considerations should be taken fully into account and it should only be in exceptional cases that bail as a matter of discretion is granted.
The Director of Public Prosecutions Bernard Turner told the Bahama Journal yesterday afternoon that officials now have to consider their next move in light of the Privy Council ruling.
But he assured that for now Knowles and the other co-accused will stay put.
“We will await the receipt of the order in council because this has to be taken before the Queen, signed and sent to the Court of Appeal. Then we can give effect to the judgment, he said. “The question may be whether it ought to be revisited to the Supreme Court having regard to the [Privy Council] saying the reasons why the granting of bail was erroneous.
Justice Thompson had granted bail in the sum of $200,000 to Knowles and $100,000 to Nathaniel Knowles, Ian Bethel, Sean Bruery and Eddison Watson, pending the conclusion of their habeus corpus application. The Supreme Court has not yet heard this application.
The decision came after a Magistrate had ruled that the men be extradited to the United States to face drug related charges. The men’s attorney immediately filed a habeus corpus. That also triggered an immediate appeal from prosecutors.
On a related matter, the lords of the Privy Council’s judicial committee also upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that attorneys for the appellants are not entitled to certain pertinent documents that they were seeking under an order of discovery.
Those documents included the Prime Minister’s appointment of Senator Dr. Marcus Bethel as Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs which led to him signing an extradition order. At the time Minister Fred Mitchell was on a documented leave out of the country attending a CARICOM meeting.
The bundle also included Minister Mitchell’s bills and receipts for hotel accommodations, airfare and any formal documents signed during his trip.
The Privy Council determined that the challenge to Dr, Bethel’s authority raises clearly a constitutional issue. The Court of Appeal had regarded the challenge to his appointment and the order for discovery as a method of impugning the Governor-General and other officers appointed under her authority in a way which was wholly unacceptable.
But the lords ruled that the acts of the Governor General are notwholly immune from judicial review, although they conceded that the exercise of some of her functions may not be liable to such investigation and review, quite apart from certain provisions outlined in Article 79(4) in the Constitution.
By: Tameka Lundy, The Bahama Journal
