NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The Court of Appeal has upheld a Supreme Court judge’s decision to deny bail to a man accused of a murder committed in Exuma last November.
Alcot Fox, 29, is alleged to have shot and killed 22-year-old Malik Fernander around 11 pm on November 10 in Rolleville, Exuma. According to police reports, the victim was found lying on a track road by authorities with multiple apparent gunshot wounds to the upper body.
At the time of his death, Fernander was out on bail on charges of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder from 2018. Fernander has been charged in the shooting deaths of Rashad Bethel and D’Siorn Symonette as well as a failed attempt on Roland Brown’s life.
Fox had sought bail in the Supreme Court however Senior Justice Bernard Turner back in June ruled against granting him bail.
Justice Turner had noted that based on witness statements it could reasonably be concluded that Fernander’s death was a successful, planned hit, even though he had taken steps to distance himself from New Providence.
“Retaliatory killings raise the specter of further retaliatory killings, which, from the evidence in this matter, can extend to the smallest Family Island community. This raises the issue not only of the safety of the applicant, but also the safety of society,” Turner stated.
Fox subsequently appealed that ruling on the ground that the decision to refuse him bail was unreasonable based on the reasons given by the Judge. Fox argued that there was a lack of evidence to suggest that he would be in danger if released, and contested the Judge’s reliance on hearsay evidence regarding his alleged involvement in gang activity.
The Court of Appeal after hearing Fox’s appeal against Senior Justice Turner’s decision affirmed the judge’s ruling.
The appellate court in its ruling noted: “The judge relied on his experience and common sense to evaluate the hearsay evidence and ultimately concluded that it was both admissible and persuasive enough to be considered during the bail hearing. The judge also took into account the statutory considerations outlined in section 4(2)(b) of the Bail Act, along with the factors listed in Part A of the Bail (Amendment) Act.”
According to the appellate court, there was sufficient evidence presented to support the judge’s decision to deny bail. “The judge acted reasonably and logically when reaching this conclusion, and therefore, there is no basis for the court to intervene.”
