WHEN A RESPECTED ATTORNEY at law equates the outcome of bail applications in our magistrate’s courts to playing the lottery, the statement ought not to be ignored.
When a number of his colleagues express opinions that essentially support this view it is time for those in charge to take note.
It is important for us to state from the outset that while the background and idiosyncrasies of some presiding officers will no doubt influence how they treat some individuals, by and large the problem with the handling of bail applications, as expressed by the attorneys, has more to do with apparent systemic weaknesses.
This is probably why, long before these lawyers had their say recently, accused persons and/or their relatives had been asking out loud for years how come individuals facing different courts on what appeared to be the same charge and with not dissimilar histories suffered different fates.
In fact, there have been instances in which individuals, particularly in drug-related cases, ended up getting bail even though the quantity of drugs involved was considerably larger than in prior cases where accused persons were remanded to prison for smaller quantities – at times significantly smaller.
This can be compounded when the accused, for whatever reason, ends up before the court unrepresented by a lawyer. And the perception hat the system lacks uniformity is not helped when in denying bail a magistrate makes questionable comments about why the individual was being remanded.
We certainly would not wish to be seen as second guessing magistrates from the comfort of distant armchairs, when on any given day they face a difficult and daunting task of presiding over a system that in many ways is now grossly inappropriate for the volume of work and at times complexity of cases that are presented to them.
But whether or not we like it, our courts are critical public institutions that play a key role in determining whether citizens feel as though the society treats all its people with equity and fairness.
And given that those who end up in court come disproportionately from the working class segment of the society, any sense of inequality, whether perceived or real, can contribute to further antisocial behaviour.
We therefore support the position, as expressed by attorney Verla De Peiza, that clear guidelines ought to be put in place to assist magistrates in bail hearings. There is significant food for thought in her comment: “Magistrates are creatures of statute, even when it comes to bail. The guidance is not there for them, so it’s going to have to be at their discretion. I would like to think that they would examine each case and treat each one on its own facts because sometimes even though they look similar, they are not.”
With the best will in the world, when decision- making involves multiple people in separate jurisdictions where consultation is not required or even appropriate, but where individual discretion is a key component, it is not surprising that there are allegations of inconsistency.
Fortunately, as far as we can see, this is not a difficult matter to resolve once those who are charged with the responsibility to act see the importance of acting, and doing so with alacrity.
