NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The Court of Appeal has dismissed the bail application of a man charged with murder who was denied bail in the lower court in the “public interest”.
Frithzson Kersaint was murdered on Grand Bahama on February 23, 2020.
He was shot several times around the ‘Stop and Shop Plaza’ on Polaris Drive.
Tyreke Mallory was charged with his murder.
Mallory was denied bail in the lower court and remanded to the Department of Correctional Services.
He has been awaiting trial, set for October 2023.
The court denied his bail on the for reasons, including that his trial will be held in a reasonable time, the likelihood that he would abscond, and the likelihood of witness interference/intimidation.
The lower court also took into consideration that Mallory was on bail for armed robbery at the time of the alleged crime.
The court also said it weighed the appellant’s liberty against the public interest and safety and sided with the public interest.
Mallory appealed the decision.
Court of Appeal Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Roy Jones and Milton Evans ruled on the matter.
In court, the appellant said he will not interfere or intimidate or do anything to obstruct justice, telling the court that prior to his arrest he was employed as a construction worker, a father of a young child and the sole breadwinner for his family.
The appellate court said there was no evidence by the Crown to move the trial date forward and while the appellant did not raise the issue, it did not absolve the trial judge of their responsibility to give consideration to the appellant’s constitutional rights.
In his ruling, Evans said: “In my view, having regard to his antecedents and the fact that he was arrested for the current offence while on bail there is a reasonable basis to perceive him as a threat to society.”
“Further, the evidence, in my view, raises a reasonable suspicion of the commission of the offences by the appellant, such as to justify the deprivation of his liberty by arrest, charge, and detention pending trial,” read the ruling, though Evans said the judge did not specifically address the issue of whether conditions could be set which would meet the concern that the appellant, if released on bail, would commit additional crimes.
He continued: “…Having reviewed his decision, I am satisfied that he had in mind all of the relevant matters necessary to arrive at his conclusion and I cannot say that his decision is one which no reasonable judge, armed with the relevant law and information, could have made.
“It is for the foregoing reasons that I would dismiss the appeal.
“However, as noted above, if on the assigned trial date in October 2023 the appellant’s case has not commenced the trial judge would be obligated to have a close look at this issue once again.”
Sir Michael agreed and said the court could not say that the decision of the judge to refuse bail was unreasonable and that “no reasonable judge could have exercised his discretion in that manner”.
