Learning From CARICOM

Following the collapse of the case against Kenith Clifton Bulford, one of the suspects in the murder of Shaundae Jones two years ago, the Government has finally realised that the public is worried about crime. Hurrah.

At a press conference yesterday, Premier Alex Scott announced several new measures to tackle the problem: public meetings to hear residents' concerns, a review of Bermuda's laws to identify areas of weakness, and the possibility of adopting parts of the UK's Police and Criminal Evidence act. The Government has also taken its concerns about the performance of the police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Governor.

The Premier also suggested that Bermuda might be able to make use of its association with CARICOM for witness protection. Unless he's talking about resettling witnesses in Haiti, this makes a lot of sense. Bermuda's difficulties persuading witnesses to testify are linked to its size. It's reasonable to assume that the Caribbean Islands have grappled with the same problems and may have found some solutions. Randy should fly down and have a chat with them (although this time he should probably go to the bathroom before the flight takes off).

It's refreshing to see the Premier acting constructively for a change, rather than just blaming Bermuda's colonial status or the UBP. Long may it continue.

Comments

[jake on 29.04.05 at 18:33]

There is a far more simple way of dealing with hesitating witnesses.

Charge them.

We need to realize that when a criminal goes free, he or she will go on to perpetuate more crime, and it encourages witnesses and accuseds to avail themselves of this seeming loophole: intimidation.

In the interest of justice, we need to demonstrate to the community that the ones they have to worry about sit on the bench. Eliot Spitzer is successful because he is giving people a clear alternative: co-operate or I will crush you. It is working.

LCN (La Cosa Nostra or "our thing") is being fought with long prison sentences in isolation as an alternative. It helps to refresh the mind.

I guarantee that as soon as these witnesses are in a six by six, cot and three hots, they will be more than willing to help to keep our country clean. Word will go out - I am not going to prison for some shit you did! - and people will be more forthcoming.

Those who don't help us are hurting all of us, not just the Jones family - and they are asking the bereaved to take matters into their own hands.

Is that not where we are today?

[Andrew on 29.04.05 at 18:52]

I agree. How is this done in other jurisdictions?

[Adjustah on 30.04.05 at 11:03]

AH-HAHAHAHAH! HA-HA-HA-HA!
No seriously, the Bermudian Witness Protection Program. AH-HAH-HA!

Where is it? St. David's?

Seriously? The holes in the Beruda Justice system have been evident to all since the abortion that was the Rebecca Middleton "trial".

I see more justice in action when I watch the E! Re-enactment of the Michael Jackson Trial.

Bring back the cat' and the gibbet.

[just vote no on 30.04.05 at 11:33]

Its not funny when somebody in your family is murdered and the alleged killer has a cabinet minister for a relative. Small states need to report corruption like this to an international corruption site. The floodgates of revenge will bleed under Independence. Blantant Corruption armed resistance. President Bush we need you. Just vote no committee member

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 30.04.05 at 12:37]

I do not think the only problem is the reluctance of witnesses to testify I think there is also some reluctance of jury members to convict for fear of retaliation. Since Bermuda is an Associate Member of Caricom maybe juries for high profile, serious offence cases can come from Caricom member coutries. hat would give true independence to the juries. Not being legally trained I do not know if current laws would allow for this. Maybe one of our legal minds can advise on this.

Jake,

I understand where you are coming from, however, if one is truly afraid to testify because of a potential retaliation either on himself or close family members, charging him and locking him up wil not get him to talk. This problem is not limited to Bermuda, it is the same in many island states.

It is a very difficult and real situation especially in small communities where the defendant knows you, knows your family and where you and they live and work. Further, how easy is it to present a jury in Bermuda where none of te jury members know the defendant or someone in his family?

[Martin on 30.04.05 at 21:35]

What are you saying Guilden....do nothing?

If the Island does not get it's head around this one...we face major problems.

It's easy to say it, but just once in a while, you have to lift yourself above protecting those you know and 'doing what is right' for the wider good.

Jake is right.

[Bill Cook on 02.05.05 at 08:59]

There is great difficulty getting convictions in Bermuda, and there is a variety of reasons for that.
With 21 sq miles app. and app 60,000 plus population, everyone knows everyone else or is related to them.
This makes jury selection almost impossible given standard criteria.
Consideration should be given for the 3 judges instead, as seasoned experienced judges are also less likely to be swayed emotionally by defence lawyers which is why they oppose this method.
It is the major drug cases and high profile murder cases where witnesses are reluctant.
The method of dealing with this during the terrorism era in N Ireland saw evidence given away from view.
The sworn evidence can be signed and verified without the witness being exposed and they can not refute evidence all that being taken care of beforehand.
The argument by defence lawyers is that they cannot cross examine the witness, but there are ways to deal with that.
Had that been done in the Bulford case it would have allowed the case to go forward.
Why the prosecution did not liase with Warner prior to having to charter a private jet remains a mystery, they had plenty of time to do so,and like so many other cases this was bungled by incompetance.

[The Limey on 02.05.05 at 09:06]

Bill said:

With 21 sq miles app. and app 60,000 plus population, everyone knows everyone else or is related to them. This makes jury selection almost impossible given standard criteria.

Guilden said:

Since Bermuda is an Associate Member of Caricom maybe juries for high profile, serious offence cases can come from Caricom member coutries

Or perhaps we should make use of a group of people already living in Bermuda who have few personal or family connections to the locals: the expats.

[Tiger Bay on 02.05.05 at 09:10]

Calling expats to jury duty certainly makes more sense than going to the Caribbean.

[Pitts Bay on 02.05.05 at 09:18]

"Trial by Expats" - I can see that going down REALLY well!! Another thing that can be laid at the doorstep of the expat community - "...you f***ing expats convicted my cousin/brother etc..."

[Tiger Bay on 02.05.05 at 09:24]

Any more than trial by Jamaican? Sorry, bringing in outta town ringers would not make a jury of one's peers!

[jake on 02.05.05 at 10:05]

I reject the conclusion that Bermudians are unable to judge their peers. They do so with regularity in criminal trials and have done so for hundreds of years, when our population was even smaller.

Contrary to belief we are not all related, nor would that define my decision were I to serve on a jury. If my cousin had sexual abuse charges laid against him would I convict on evidence beyond reasonable doubt: yes.

The problem is that we have to make our system more accountable. Judges, lawyers for the prosecution & defense, and juries all shoulder a responsibility to sort out the guilty from the falsely accused. Some of the people charged actually are innocent. Their aquittal should be a cause for happiness because the system is working. Where we have a witness who SEES a man shoot another man, and that witness does not testify, that is the system not being put to work, nor is it the fault of the jury.

I don't believe in bad juries. I believe in poor prosecutors, weak judges and defense counsel who go farther than their remit dictates.

I am not sure if the charges being dropped at this stage create a "double jeopardy" exemption, but to my knowledge it should not. Bulford should never rest easy. Society has been attacked when a man is shot in cold blood. Someone will have to answer one day in a court room for it.

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 02.05.05 at 10:24]

Martin,

Please stop with the foolishness. Where did I say do nothing? Of Bermuda needs to deal with this. What I was highlighting what is a reality in a small community.

Let's use you as an example. Let's say you have knowledge of a very large drug transaction that takes place and you are called to testify for the prosecution. If you receive a threat on your life or the life of your wife or child if you testify, how willing are you going to be to testify if you know that the defendant knows you and your family and knows where you live? I think you would be very reluctant.

It is a reality in a small community. I do not have the answer but there is nothing wrong with throwning out suggestions for discussion, is there?

[shipstones on 02.05.05 at 11:48]

Reluctance to testify stems from fear of reprisal.
The only antidote to this is to break down the gangs and drug rings.
But to do that it needs the testimony of these reluctant witnesses. It is a never ending circle of violence.
I don't know what the answer should be. I don't see Caricom solving the problem, their lot is worse than ours!
Expats would be villified as jurists.
By the way it is not always fear of reprisal, it can be bribery that pursuades the witness not to testify.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 02.05.05 at 12:51]

Ships,

I agree with you. There definitely is no easy answer. It is sad to see what is going on in Bermuda. There used to be a situation where a murder or attempted murder was a major news worthy event now it seems that it is becoming more and more regular.

[Martin on 02.05.05 at 13:01]

Guilden,

This is not foolishness I can assure you.

I understand the point that you make, and 'yes' I would be reluctant. But - if you do not overcome the reluctance and testify, what do you have left? You might as well throw away the Book - and cave in to mob rule. The next time someone says, "I know where you live"...is my mind supposed to go blank. Worst still - am I supposed to ignore the injured party?

Likewise with juries. You know very well that in the UK jury service is likely to be at a local level, meaning that there is a real chance that you know the accused. The jury system still works I think?

Sometimes, you have to "do what is right", irrespective of the (possible) consequences.

I get pretty tired of people making excuses for members of society and saying things like..."well - it's only human nature after all".

This falls into that category, and it is not human nature. We have allowed it to bacome so.

[jake on 02.05.05 at 13:53]

I am with you Martin. People who are not willing to do their civic duty should be penalized for it. Murderers are going to (a) go free and (b) be encouraged by this.

What does this lead to? Vigilantes. If someone kills my brother and the Police are unable to act because of some reluctant witness, I am going to have to deal with the killer myself. Perhaps I will get it right. Perhaps I will eke out my revenge on the wrong person. Either way, the matter escalates from there.

This is why we have law and the rule of law. The state stands in to protect us so that there is a fair protection for all.

[Tiger Bay on 02.05.05 at 13:57]

I agree with you Jake. The issue is that the community has lost all respect and trust in the Police and Prosecutions.

"Why put myself at risk when they'll still screw it up?!"

These two institutions must be revived.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 02.05.05 at 14:11]

Martin,

When I said stop with the foolishness I was referring to your comment implying that I meant do nothing.

You and I are actually in agreement on this but you seem to be bent on searching for a way to chastise me for what I say so you decide on your on interpretation of my comments.

I do not care how people feel about what I say but do try to cause a dispute when we are in agreement.

I was simply pointing out the difficulties the system in Bermuda faces. It is a difficulty because if it weren't we wouldn't be discussing it.

[Martin on 02.05.05 at 15:49]

Guilden

Chastise?...certainly not my intention. Maybe the emotion of the moment stopped me rechecking what I had put?

And I do feel quite passionate about certain aspects of life, as indeed you must surely do. For me, one of them is that small minorities (thugs) must not be allowed to manipulate the way the rest of us behave and think.

If thugs want to opt-out of society - that's fine by me. Good luck to them just so long as I am not affected. It's the same thing with people on bikes who drive having left their brains at home. Daft - stupid - but it's up to them. HOWEVER - if it affects me....then that ain't on.

It is difficult here in Bermuda, you are absolutely right. I just happen to think that instead of waxing lyrical for months on end trying to find a solution and debating it with the elecorate as Govt is suggesting, there is a straightforward solution (not the same as 'easy') already available to us.

Do what is "right".

And the more people that say it - and do it - the quicker the rest of society gets used to doing the same.

[Bill Cook on 02.05.05 at 16:38]

The double jeopardy law is under review as with DNA it is possibleto confirm beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt or innocence of those either convicted or those let go because of screw ups, as in the Middleton case.

How anyone could oppose a change in this ridiculous law is beyond any reaonable rationale.

After all if DNA can free a wrongly convicted person, then surely the same evidence should be permitted to convict a guilty one

I am sure there was a reason for putting in the double jeopardy law but it is outmoded.

In a perfect world we could look to the Judiciary to give us JUSTICE but as Clarence Darrow said "I can promise you the law but I can not promise you justice"

It is a misnomer to refer to the "Dept of Justice"

The only ones being protected by the stupid double jeopardy law is the criminal.

Interestingly the Mafia got general support from the immigrant Italian society by taking care of personal problems that the police were unable or unwilling to address.

Your daughter was raped, so you see the god father and the rapist if he lived would be singing Falsetto !!

[Onion on 02.05.05 at 16:46]

You might be able to compel a witness to testify but you cannot dictate what he is to say in the witness box. The quality of the evidence adduced would be very questionable and defence counsel would have a field day.

"Members of the jury, this witness was threatened with a prison sentence unless he testified before you this morning. I leave it to you to determine the quality of his testimony."

[big bad wolf on 02.05.05 at 17:23]

Ok no witness....I'll put a call into my God Father ^..^

[jake on 02.05.05 at 17:29]

Any lawyer worth his wig would be able to deal with that.

"Members of the jury, it was necessary to hold the witness in contempt for refusing to testify in court, to the events he gave information about to the Police. Witnesses will often refuse to testify because of fear. You may ask yourself: who does the witness fear, and who would that fear benefit? You may ask...but I could not comment. You are entitled to hear the answers they do give, and we will also hear from the record of the interview given to the Police. You are entitled to decide: do you believe them then or now? You may ask the question: do I find them reliable? All the questions are relevant questions, but they do not remove from you, members of the jury, the responsibility for deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused in this case. You are entitled to look at the facts as presented by the prosecution. You are entitled to ask: why?"

[John on 02.05.05 at 18:00]

As a former police officer - another unwanted expat - I served on the Island in the 1960's.I returned in 2005 and in respect to the administration of justice it appeared to me that time had stood still. Last October, I looked in at a couple of trials and was amazed to see that practices which have died in England almost 30 years ago, still exist in Bermuda. The use of written statements from the accused, which were always contentious and often written up as 'coughs' to hasten a conviction and the reluctance to utilise recorded interviews (which negates the quick interview in a small back room), were two obvious examples which I found rather quaint.

I believe that a prominent black barrister from England is due to attend in Bermuda to do some defence work and has himself intimated that the Bermuda Criminal law is archaic to say the least. The Criminal Code dates from 1907 and has been tinkered with and amended over the last 100 years. It is surely time for your 'sophisticated' country to come into the 21st century.

With regard to the jury system, I must agree, with my knowledge of the Island, that it must be extremely difficult to find 12 people from the pool available, to find truly unconnected people.

I wish you luck.

[Onion on 03.05.05 at 01:28]

A jury is the best thing we have in Bermuda and it has worked well. The alternative is to use judges. How democratic and unbiased would that be?

[jake on 03.05.05 at 11:22]

If the Magistrate's decision in the death of that little girl in the car accident is anything to go by, the judges leave much to be desired.

Juries can often see past the smoke and mirrors and get to the essence of a matter.

I believe in Bermudian juries.

Farming that out exclusively to foreign jury constituents would be divisive in our community and an abdication of our social responsibilities. We can police ourselves. We can lead and govern ourselves. We can learn from other people and societies, and they can learn from us.

All wisdom does not emanate from the airport.

[John on 03.05.05 at 17:59]

Jake,

Your comments are typical of the 'head in the sand' responses. It is exactly the point that your because your Criminal Law has not kept up to date, that the conviction was not upheld. There has been a plethora of such occasions lately - you cannot convict on sentiment There was insufficient evidence to prove the offence, because the legislation is so old and decrepit. You don't want to listen to the outside world? then I repeat, I wish you luck.

[jake on 03.05.05 at 19:18]

John,

Perhaps your reading & comprehension could use a little dusting off. What I actually wrote was: "We can learn from other people and societies" so how is my head in the sand?

I actually agree that legal reform is overdue, and nowhere have I suggested otherwise. My comments were directed to the sentiment that there was some fundamental problem with the jury system in a population of 60,000. I think that is wrong.

By the way, your country could benefit from holding back on change for changes sake, as many of the Woolf reforms were in fact changes in name only and did not improve process.

If you think that we should mirror Britain in every respect, then I wish you luck as well.

[big bad wolf on 03.05.05 at 21:26]

Jake just to be clear the Woolf reforms are not my people ^..^

[Onion on 04.05.05 at 09:54]

One of the things Bermuda has taken too long to implement has been the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. This was implemented in 1984 in UK and it is ridiculous that in 2005 we are JUST having a similar one drafted. PACE lays out the law for an accused's right to silence, right to an attorney, etc.

[just vote no on 11.06.05 at 15:07]

Gun permits would allow witnesses to feel safe along with cash to pay bodyguards. There wil be a lot of violence under independence people are talking already..like Hotel Rwanda.