……the Prisoner who got bail for murder accused
BY FRANCIS JOSEPH
Akili Charles created history when he challenged the bail laws in this country.
When he did so, there was no bail for murder. But through his persistence, the circumstances changed and the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council ruled that it was unconstitutional that murder accused did not have access to bail.
But before he could see his case through, Charles was shot and killed. But his mother, Melina Charles, was substituted and she saw the case to the end. Last week, the estate of Akili Charles was awarded more than $1 million in damages for breaches of his fundamental rights.
Master Sherlanne Pierre assessed compensation in favour of Charles’ estate. Melina Charles, was substituted as the legal personal representative of his estate by order of the Privy Council on August 31, 2022, after he was murdered before the assessment of damages could be heard.
Justice Marcia Ayres-Caesar
Charles had been jointly charged on December 5, 2010, with the murder of Russell Antoine. Because Section 5(1) of the Bail Act and its First Schedule classified murder as a non-bailable offence, he remained on remand at the Port of Spain Prison for almost eight and a half years without ever being able to apply for bail.
His first preliminary inquiry began in January 2012 and continued for more than five years before being halted in April 2017 when then Chief Magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar was elevated to the High Court. A fresh inquiry commenced and, on May 21, 2019, Charles was discharged after a no-case submission was upheld.
In February 2020, he filed a constitutional motion challenging the legality of the absolute bar on bail for murder. Although he initially lost at first instance, the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal, holding that the blanket prohibition violated his rights under Sections 4(a), 5(2)(a), 5(2)(f)(iii) and 5(2)(h) of the Constitution.
Akili Charles with his mother
The Office of the Attorney General appealed, but the Privy Council affirmed the appellate ruling and declared that Charles’ constitutional right not to be deprived of reasonable bail without just cause had been infringed.
In assessing damages, Master Pierre rejected the State’s submission that the court should speculate about whether Charles would actually have been granted bail. She held that the breach flowed directly from the legislation itself.
She added, “The fact of the matter was that he was denied that right by an act of Parliament,” the master stated. She found that because the law extinguished his right to apply for bail from the outset, “each day of his detention represented the continuation of the breach of his right”.
Accordingly, she took into account the entire period of approximately eight and a half years that Charles spent on remand, without making deductions for what the State described as “imponderables”, such as whether bail would have been granted, or whether he might have breached conditions.
The court also examined the conditions under which Charles was detained at the Port of Spain State Prison.
