Commissioner of Police Gary Griffith is appealing to the authorities to reconsider the minimal bail clause, after a 19-year-old man who was arrested with nine high powered rifles was granted half a million dollars bail this week.
The Commissioner's office issued a statement about the matter this morning. Here is the full appeal made by Commissioner Griffith.
Statement
Commissioner of Police Gary Griffith is today fervently appealing to the relevant authorities to reconsider the minimal bail clause in light of the granting of bail to a man who was recently charged for possession of nine (9) fully automatic weapons of war, together with magazines.
Commissioner Griffith states that several assault rifles in the hands of criminal elements, may result in the death of hundreds of people in seconds, yet when persons are apprehended for possession of these type of weapons, the present criminal justice appears flawed and at times favouring the criminal elements, rather than the potential victim. Commissioner Griffith states “when granted bail, these offenders can very well access another illegal firearm to continue attacking the State, and law-abiding citizens.
This is with one weapon, far more someone who may have been held for possession of nine (9) assault rifles.”
The Commissioner states “the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) is in a virtual war out there, given the types of weapons that the enemies of the state carry, but when they shoot at us and we return fire to defend ourselves, we are interrogated and at times condemned. Likewise, when we capture them, whilst holding them with the type of weapons that can kill dozens of innocent citizens in seconds; orders are then given in 24 hours for them to be released, thus allowing the enemy of the state to return to the killing fields, to acquire another firearm. This is certainly not a level playing field, and at times we are left to wonder why the controllable odds are being stacked against not only the Police but so too the law-abiding citizens."
The previous Bail Amendment Act prior to its Sunset Clause worked, where, if held, the offending party would be without bail, as such, the likelihood of being allowed the opportunity to acquire additional weaponry or even the potential for retaliation is effectively blocked. As a result of the recent Parliamentary adjustment to this clause, persons held with illegal firearms, whether, one, or nine, handheld or semi-automatic, are afforded access to bail once they did not have a previous conviction.
Commissioner Griffith states, “at some point, the gloves must come off, in apprehending persons, is it that we must now hope that they would have had a previous conviction for an illegal activity such as being in possession of numerous illegal automatic weapons before we keep such elements off the street? Why would someone have such an arsenal in their possession illegally? How are the officers of the TTPS to function effectively when they believe they are operating with a revolving door that seems to benefit the perpetrator? One automatic weapon has the potential to remove dozens of lives in an instant, what about nine? Why do we have to wait for someone to actively engage and cause havoc before decisive action is taken?”
Commissioner Griffith underscores, that whilst offences such as returned cheques and other types of fraudulent activity are not to be trivialised, certainly, such offences are to be weighed differently than those of persons held with illegal weapons that can be used with an intent to kill.
The Commissioner says while it is a person’s constitutional right to bail, the Bail Act contemplates the seriousness of the offence when a judicial officer must consider bail. Therefore, the Commissioner of Police is curious about what message judicial officers are sending to the nation when persons are alleged to have been found with a cache of these guns which can kill hundreds of people in the blink of an eye and can so easily access bail to perpetrate similar offences on law-abiding citizens.
The CoP says it is also noteworthy to mention, that while he recognizes that the Bail Amendment Bill recently passed was made with the best intentions, it is still ineffective in its current form. He believes that the Bail Amendment which was previously in effect some five (5) years ago was a more effective piece of legislation in
the fight against crime and such a lenient and delicate judicial approach would have been negated, had a similar bail amendment been passed.