DPP v Paul Lewis

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: MORRISON JA
• Judgment Date: 03 November 2010
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2010] 11 JJC 0301
• Date: 03 November 2010
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)

[2010] JMCA Crim 83

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

APPELLANT

AND

PAUL LEWIS

RESPONDENT

Jeremy Taylor for the appellant

Keith Bishop for the respondent

CRIMINAL LAW - Bail - Leave to appeal bail - Whether there was a risk of interfering with the course of justice - Bail (Amendment) Act

MORRISON JA

Background

1 [1] This is an appeal by the learned Director of Public Prosecutions against the grant of bail to the respondent by the learned Resident Magistrate for the parish of Westmoreland. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal on 1 November 2010, I reserved my decision and on 3 November 2010 I announced to the parties that theappeal would be dismissed, with reasons to be put in writing at a later date. These are my reasons for that decision.

2 2] The background to this appeal can be shortly stated. On 14 June 2009 the respondent was charged with the offences of carnal abuse and indecent assault. The virtual complainants were two young girls of the ages of 14 and 15 years at the time of the alleged offences. It appears that within two weeks of his arrest the respondent, who denied the allegations, applied for and was offered bail by a judge of the Supreme Court on certain conditions, which were and have been at all times complied with. Having taken up the offer of bail, the respondent remained on bail until 4 September 2009, when the Preliminary Enquiry into the charges commenced before the Senior Resident Magistrate for the parish. On 11 September 2009, the respondent was committed to stand trial at the next sitting of the Circuit Court in Savanna-La-Mar.

3 [3] The trial of the matter was in due course set for 27 October 2010. Upon his arrival at court on that date, the respondent was arrested and charged with the offence of perverting the course of justice (in connection with the offences for which he was due to stand trial that day) and taken (at approximately 2:00 p.m.) before the Resident Magistrate, Mr Collymore Gordon. An application for bail, which was opposed by Mr Dirk Harrison, the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions assigned to the Westmoreland Circuit Court for the relevant period, was then made by Mr Keith Bishop on the respondent's behalf. Bail was then offered to the respondent in the sum of $300,000.00, with a surety, on condition that his travel documents were to be retainedby the Crown in the court's office, the stop order previously placed against him was to remain in place and that he should have no contact with any of the witnesses for the prosecution. He was then ordered to return to court on 10 November 2010 and the adjournment was taken immediately thereafter (at approximately 2:30 p.m.). It appears that the Resident Magistrate left the court building shortly after the adjournment was taken, having advised counsel while he was in court that he was scheduled to attend a meeting in Mandeville later that afternoon. The respondent was then taken before Beswick J in the Circuit Court and his bail with regard to the offences for which he was charged in that court was extended to 3 November 2010, which was the new date set for trial of the matter in that court.

4 [4] Although Mr Harrison and Mr Bishop, both of whom swore affidavits which were placed before me, differ as to the exact details of what happened after this, I do not consider that anything turns on these differences, particularly given the matters about which they are in agreement. These are therefore the undisputed facts:

• (a) The Crown gave no indication in open court after the respondent had been offered bail by the Resident Magistrate that it intended to appeal the grant of bail.

• (b) At a point after the adjournment of the matter and after the Resident Magistrate had left the precincts of the court, Mr Harrison instructed Miss Melony Domville, Clerk of the Courts for the parish of Westmoreland, to make contact with the Resident Magistrate by telephone and to advise himof the Crown's intention to appeal the grant of bail to the respondent, who was still in custody.

• (c) Telephone contact was in fact made with the Resident Magistrate, who was advised of the Crown's intention accordingly, and he in turn gave instructions to the Clerk of the Courts to discontinue the processing of the respondent's bail. These instructions were carried out and the respondent was therefore remanded in custody.

• (d) Mr Bishop was only advised of these developments after he too had left the precincts of the court in the late afternoon.

• (e) On the following day, 28 October 2010, the appellant gave notice of appeal to the Resident Magistrate's Court and to this court in respect of the grant of bail by the Resident Magistrate in the circumstances outlined above.

• (i) There are substantial grounds for believing that the respondent, if released on bail, would commit an offence while on bail, or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice and that he was charged with an offence which was allegedly committed while he was on bail in respect of another offence.

• (ii) The Resident Magistrate exercised his discretion to grant bail improperly, in the light of the nature and seriousness of the offence with which therespondent was charged, the risk of his interfering with the course of justice and the strength of the Crown's case.

The grounds of appeal

[5] The grounds of appeal are that —

The Bail (Amendment) Act, 2010

5 [6] The appeal was filed pursuant to the provisions of the Bail (Amendment) Act (Act No. 20 of 2010), which came into force on 23 July 2010 and confers upon the prosecution (for the first time) a right of appeal in cases where bail has been granted to a defendant by a court (It appears that this...