Attorney at law Joshua Francis holding papers for Zena Moore Dyer (who represents Kent Thomas Mitchell) but is sick and unable to attend court put on a spirited fight as he tried to impress on the court to grant him bail.
He was arrested at the Woodbridge Bay Port Fond Cole after Customs discovered 150 live rounds of 9mm ammunition in a barrel he attempted to clear on February 7, 2022.
Section 7 (1) (d) of the Bail Act 20 of 2020 states that “where a defendant is charged with or convicted of an offence under the Firearms Act, 2011 punishable by a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more, the court shall not grant bail to that defendant unless it is satisfied that appropriate circumstances exist to justify the granting of bail.”
Among the circumstance the court must look at are if the defendant will surrender to custody; will not commit any offence whilst on bail and that it is in the public interest to grant the defendant bail.
Based on these circumstances, Francis told the court that Mitchell has a fixed place of abord, close family ties in the community of Bellevue Chopin where he is an “entrepreneur” and will surrender to custody.
“He is not a flight risk, he has no reasons to run away and his proposed surety is a responsible and intelligent person who knows about the risks associated with the bail,” Francis said.
The defendant he stated “will not commit any offence whilst on bail and is not known to the court as it relates to convictions.”
“I humble submit Your Honour, that bail should be granted to him and should the court have any reasons to doubt the granting of bail, I respectfully submit that the Bail Act satisfactorily provides conditions for bail to ally any fears,” he said.
But in his brief rebuttal Police prosecutor Sergeant Vivian Augustine told the court that the prevalence of such offences in recent times, the public concern and interest in such offences and its serious nature bail ought not to be granted.
He also highlighted Section 7 (1) (d) of the Bail Act which states that “bail shall be denied” when charged with “any offence under the Firearms Act, 2011 punishable by a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more.”
Sergeant Augustine also told the court (and presented his conviction sheet) that Kent Thomas Mitchell had convictions dating back to 2009, but counsel Francis objected stated that they were “spent convictions and will be prejudicial to his client” and asked the court not to take that into consideration.
But Magistrate Michael Laduat ruled the conviction sheet of Mitchell will be accepted since it will give the court insight into his behaviour as it determines the matter of bail.
Francis then told the court that the prosecution had not provided “no substantial grounds to satisfy it that if bail were to be granted, he (Mitchell) would not surrender to custody, commit an offence whilst on bail and pervert the course of justice.”
“The prosecution has nothing to prove, he who asserts must prove, the defence who has to prove its case. The public’s interest is about justice in a fair and appropriate manner, justice is two words, fairness and none prejudicial,” Laduat said.
He ruled that the prosecution under Section 7 (2) of the Bail Act has satisfied the court that it was in the public’s interest not to grant bail to Mitchell and he so rules that bail will not be granted to him in “the public’s interest.” He also recused himself from hearing the facts of the case where Mitchell pleaded guilty to importation of ammunition and not guilty to the false declaration to Customs.