The Government’s chief legal advisor on Friday side-stepped debate over jail-time for COVID breachers.
Attorney General Dale Marshall would not be drawn on comments over the judicial decisions and maintained that everyone who appeared before the court is “treated fairly unless the Court of Appeal determines otherwise”.
On Thursday, the Court of Appeal significantly reduced a six-month sentence to two months, which was handed down to a Jamaican for breaking the COVID-19 directives.
But tough sentences have been handed down to Barbadians who broke the dusk-to-dawn curfew and other restrictions, sparking an outcry.
Dean George Scott was sent to prison by Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes in December after he was unable to pay a $6,000 fine for leaving quarantine without a reasonable explanation.
A father and son were also among several people remanded to HMP Dodds by Weekes for disobeying the directives. They were granted bail by the High Court after spending six nights in prison.
The imprisonments have all occurred under the COVID emergency directive, which imposes a fine of $50,000 or one-year imprisonment, or both, to anyone who fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the ongoing curfew.
It led to several lawyers voicing their disapproval. with Queen’s Counsel Andrew Pilgrim describing it as a way of incarcerating people “through the back door”.
But the AG said he would not be drawn into a debate on whether magistrates or judges were adequately performing their duties.
Marshall told journalists: “I think in some of these forums I have reiterated the basis on which our doctrine of separation of powers sits. The judiciary is responsible for hearing cases and determining sentences. The legislature, to that of which I belong, will have enacted a statute and the executive will have set out what the maximum penalty is and that is what we do.
“A judicial officer, whether it is a magistrate or a judge, hearing the facts, if the person is convicted will then make his or her own judgment as to what sentence is appropriate. If an accused and his attorneys are dissatisfied from the point of view that they consider the sentence to be excessive, then there are clear mechanisms in law you can appeal and the Appeal Court as it did only this week, severely cut back on a sentence that was imposed by a magistrate. That is the job of the Appeal Court.
“As Attorney General, therefore, I reiterate that I have no view to express on whether the individuals who go before the courts are treated fairly or unfairly in relation to the sentencing. Justice is blind so every Barbadian who goes before the court is treated fairly unless the Court of Appeal determines otherwise, but I regret that I am not going to be drawn into a debate on whether a sentence was excessive or a slap on the wrist. Those are not matters for the executive or for the Parliament, those are matters for the judiciary.” (RB)
