Pichlin man on Gun/ammunition and drug offenses denied bail

Ronnell Talbert a 29-year-old from the community of Pichlin is now on remand at the Dominica State Prison (DSP) after he was denied bail by Magistrate Michael Laudat for drugs and firearm-related offences.

Talbert appeared in court on July 22, 2024, charged with possession of 12 rounds capacity 9MM ammunition; 4 rounds 9MM ammunition; and 9 grams of cocaine with intent to supply and possession of cocaine that incident took place in Pichlin on July 18, 2024.

He was further charged that on July 18, 2024, at Jeffers Lane Goodwill, he had in his possession two 12 rounds capacity 9MM ammunition and possession of 50 rounds of ammunition. When the charges were read to him Talbert who was then unrepresented pleaded “guilty” but after consultation with attorney at law Ronald Charles who was presented in court, the charges were re-read to him and he pleaded “not guilty”.

As a result, Charles told the court, that his client was informed by the police that they would not oppose bail and he would be granted bail. The prosecution, then led by Sergeant Vivian Augustine told the court that “they were not opposed to bail.”

However, the matter took a different twist when Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Sherma Dalrymple appeared in court and told the court that she was taking control of the matter and bail was being “opposed.”

Bail application hearing

In his submission to the court, lawyer Ronald Charles told the court that while he understands that bail is “at the discretion of the court, his client has met and satisfied all the requirements for bail.”

He also spoke of the commitment by the police to his client (verbal) that he will be granted bail. He however had no evidence to support that claim. The prosecution he told the court has no evidence to show that his client had been before the court before that incident. “He is a first timer…that cannot be challenged and is also a very productive individual, we submit that he will also surrender to custody, has a fixed place of residence, has a fit and proper surety, and will uphold and undertake all the conditions imposed by the court,” Charles stated.

His client he told the court was “innocent until proven guilty” and while he understands the number of gun/ammunition related offenses before the court, every single matter must be treated differently.”

“We beg of the court to use its discretion since this case has not been ventilated hence my client should be given the benefit of the doubt and granted bail, we are saying that objecting to his bail at this time is not in the best interest of justice,” Charles posited.

But in response, DPP Dalrymple told the court that her objection to bail was based on section 7 (2) (e) of the Bail Act 2020 which states “Where a defendant is charged with or convicted of an offense of (a) murder, (b) treason, (c) drug trafficking, (d) any offense under the Firearm Act 2011 punishable by a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more… Section (2) The appropriate circumstances referred to under subsection (1) of which the court must be satisfied include the court being satisfied that (a) the defendant will surrender to custody (b) will not commit any offense while on bail, € will not interfere with witnesses (e) that it is in the public’s interest to grant him bail.

She went on to tell the court that Talbert had not met the requirements and that “it was in the public’s interest to grant him bail.”

“He had a total of 54 rounds of ammunition, we need to look at the public safety and order, the prevalence of the illegal firearms and ammunition, the murder, two of them in just a week is serious cause for concern, and the court had a duty to protect the society from the gun-related offenses,” she stated.

The State she told the court was opposing the granting of bail “in the public’s interest” and the bail Act is clear on that. “While we understand that bail is at the sole discretion of the court (Magistrate or Judge) the court must protect the society from these gun-related offenses,” the DPP told the court.

Decision

“After listening to the arguments of both sides I am not convinced that it was in the interest of the public to grant bail to the accused. As a result, bail is hereby denied and the accused is remanded in custody,” the Magistrate stated.  

He stated that if there was a change in circumstances, the defendant was “free to reapply for bail” or if he so wished, “could apply to the High Court for bail.”