Seetahal: Bill gives distinct advantage to kidnapper

The kidnapper now has a distinct advantage over other  accused persons because his right to a speedy trial has been given legal significance in the Bail Bill, according to Independent Senator Dana Seetahal. She made the point during her contribution yesterday in the debate on the Bail Bill, which was subsequently passed in the Senate. The Bill was unanimously passed without amendments in the Senate, clearing the way for presidential assent which would make it law. Although many Independent Senators had difficulties with the bill, they all voted in favour of it because, as Seetahal stated, it represented a rare case of cooperation between Government and Opposition. That, plus the fact that “one quarter of the loaf was better than none,” she said. In analysing the weakness of the bill, Seetahal said she didn’t understand why persons who negotiated the ransom were not equated in the bill with the kidnapper, nor was their offence cited in the bill.

Seetahal also  felt that by placing a 60-day stipulation on the holding of a kidnapper without bail, the bill was stating, in effect, that people who are charged with kidnapping for ransom were “entitled” to a speedy trial. This, she pointed out, was recognition which was not given to any other group. Seetahal asked, “Is that what the Government and Opposition wanted? It seems to me that the real intention was to deny bail to persons charged with such a serious offence as that they would not commit offences while on bail,” she said. Seetahal said it was even more “incongruous” because the same bill made other offences non-bailable, but did not impose a similar time limit on the “holding period” during which persons accused were held in Remand Yard, without bail, awaiting trial. Seetahal said the bill seemed to be saying that persons who committed other non-bailable crimes such as manslaughter— “even motor manslaughter,” “buggery “even if it is consensual”; had sex with someone under 16 “even if the person was seventeen,” were committing more serious offences than the kidnapper who could only be held for 60 days without bail.

Under the bill, kidnappers would be denied bail, but if the accused is not brought to trial within 60 days, he is entitled to make a bail application. “In Trinidad and Tobago no one that I know of has been brought to trial within 60 days for an indictable offence,” she said. She added that the “the kidnapper would have to jump the queue many many times” to achieve the “miracle” of coming to court within the 60-day time limit. And in effect therefore, kidnappers would probably be in a position to apply for bail. Seetahal said the benefit of the bill, therefore, was the 60-day holding period. She noted however that this too had limited benefit because cellphones were available in the prison, and therefore, it was not difficult to have witnesses intimidated or eliminated from within the prison walls. “So that advantage of keeping someone in custody for 60 days is not as beneficial as it sounds in terms of protecting witnesses and the rest of the society,” she said.

Seetahal’s views were echoed to some degree by her colleagues, Dr Ken Ramchand and Dr Ramesh Deosaran. While they both had similar difficulties with the bill, like Seetahal, they indicated that they would support it. Ramchand said he did not like the fact that the “three strikes and you out” rule only applied for “separate transactions.” He said it seemed ludicrous that a person who stole a car, had an imitation gun, and cocaine on his person and then tried to bribe the police officer, would be  entitled to bail because it was “one transaction” and therefore “one strike” as opposed to four. Commenting in general on quirks in the administration of justice, Ramchand  (in an apparent reference to the Deochand Ramdhanie case) said he also didn’t understand why the court had a problem with the way a Senior Counsel operated in a case, the court could not order a re-trial or reprimand the Senior Counsel. “Why should that lead to an acquittal?” he asked.

Deosaran said it was unfair to criticise the Government by itself for the shortcomings of the Bail bill since the Opposition had an input. He said he was “almost certain” that Government would have wanted a time frame longer than 60 days during which kidnappers could be held without bail. What was brought here was a very narrow, watered down bill, and it shows the difficulties of having a compromise. “What the Opposition has done is to extricate itself, while leaving the Government with a compromise bill,” he noted. Commenting on Seetahal’s point about the differences in treatment for the kidnapper as opposed to other persons who committed violent offences and specified offences, Deosaran predicted that someone would file a constitutional motion against the bill.