IT WAS WAY BACK in 1783 that Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, wrote: “For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”
Over the centuries various variations of this quotation have been published, but regardless of the words used, the principle remained clear and unchanged and a cornerstone of societies where fairness and the rule of law rest at the foundation.
We can’t help but ask, given the passionate comments just two days ago by prominent attorney-at-law Andrew Pilgrim, QC, about the length of time some accused persons are confined to prison while awaiting trial, how seriously we are taking this principle.
Pilgrim, while representing his client Jamal Omar Ashby who had been at Her Majesty’s Prisons Dodds for more than two years awaiting trial, explained that it was not just that he had been in prison all this time, but that even after 26 months the prosecution could not offer any information on the status of the file that would be needed to start the trial.
Implicit in that was the clear suggestion that those responsible for prosecuting Ashby could not guarantee that it would not be another 26 months before they are ready to present a case – especially given the horrendous backlog that characterises the court calendar at all levels.
What if at the end the young man is found not guilty? Does the system say: “Sorry, but that’s how we work! Go in peace.” Could such a state of affairs be fair if in such a case the likely penalty is less than the time already served? Would the court offer “credit” to be used by the accused on any subsequent charges?
We are not making out a case for accused Ashby, but for those who are responsible to get their act together. There are too many things wrong with our criminal justice system and the rate of improvement is clearly negligible – if at all noticeable.
That’s why we urge Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite, Chief Justice Sir Marston Gibson and others in a position to make changes to give careful and reasonable consideration to Pilgrim’s suggestion that at the Magistrates’ Court level a 90-day limit be set for the starting of trials, failing which they be dismissed without prejudice.
“Now my view is . . . it’s not that great peril if these matters get dismissed. I think that the trend moving forward should be that magistrates should see 90 days pass and [if] nothing [is] done they should dismiss them. . . .
“They can all be brought back, but the point is people shouldn’t have to sit in prison for two years plus of their lives without one iota of evidence being brought forward,” Pilgrim said.
We, like the goodly lawyer, would have to ask on what basis charges were brought in the first place if after two years the police can’t produce a file fit for starting the trial.
We willingly concede that the job of members of the Royal Barbados Police Force is not easy in today’s environment and that criminal investigators have done an absolutely commendable job in clearing up many of the crimes reported, particularly serious crime. But what happens after an arrest in too many instances is not at all flattering for us as a society.
It is in the setting and observation of standards, such as the 90-day limit suggested by Pilgrim, that we will challenge ourselves to do better. However, in our expanding mindset of “anything goes” we will only fall deeper into the abyss.
