Teen granted bail after constitutional challenge to Bail Act

A 16-year-old boy held on remand at Dodds Prison since December last year on firearm charges was released on Monday after the High Court ordered his immediate bail following a constitutional motion challenging the “exceptional circumstances” test in the newly passed Bail Act.

The minor was reunited with his family minutes after Justice Bryan Weekes delivered the ruling, his mother told Barbados TODAY.

“I feel great and elated about everything. I feel good; that is all,” the mother said in a terse response to her son’s release.

Through his mother and attorney Lalu Hanuman, the boy is claiming the law’s “exceptional circumstances” test for firearm offences kept him locked up without clear legal grounds and breaches his rights under Section 13 of the Bill of Rights in the Barbados Constitution.

Hanuman argued that Justice Laurie Ann Smith-Bovell, who presided over the five bail hearings involving the boy, was “fettered by the amended Bail Act at Section 6 (10) with the requirement that there should be ‘exceptional circumstances’ before someone charged with a gun matter is granted bail”.

“But the new act,” the attorney contends, “does not define what constitutes exceptional circumstances, leaving persons on remand, permanently, in effect, permanently deprived of their liberty even though they haven’t been found guilty.”

Describing the case as an unusual one, Justice Weekes ordered that the minor be released into the custody of his parents – who were in court – on $75 000 bail with two sureties.

The government – represented by Deputy Solicitor-General Marsha Lougheed – had agreed to the granting of bail on that sum, but initially with one surety.

The judge also accepted the other bail conditions submitted by the State: that the accused should reside at a safe place; that he be placed on a 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. curfew daily; that he surrender his travel documents, and that he reports to the District ‘B’ Police Station on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. weekly.

In accepting the conditions, the judge emphasised that the teen must always be accompanied by his mother or father because he is still a child.

Hanuman did not object to any of the bail conditions.

In response to the judge’s earlier concerns that the minor was being held at the adult prison and not at the Government Industrial School, located a few hundred metres away at Dodds, Lougheed explained that the school is not equipped to house the boy.

She also noted that there is a particular space at the prison for him where he does not share his cell with anyone else.

The deputy solicitor-general also informed Judge Weekes that the State’s persistent refusal to grant bail to the accused was for his own safety.

But on the issue of early disclosure, the judge again expressed concern, pointing to the length of time between the charge and the accused not knowing the evidence for the charge.

The judge described as “unacceptable” the fact that it is almost a year after the boy’s remand that his legal adviser does not know the nature of his client’s charge.

Justice Weekes said this in effect means that his trial has not yet started.

The boy, who recently turned 16, has denied the firearm charges and is suing for damages, alleging the State violated his right to personal liberty under Section 13 of the Constitution.

In his statement of claim, which named the Attorney General as the sole defendant, the teen argued that he has been on remand since on or about December 1, 2025, for alleged firearm offences, although he has provided an alibi.

It said: “Despite five bail hearings, bail has not been granted, as the new Bail Act of 2024 requires under Section 10, that ‘exceptional circumstances’ be provided before bail can be granted for an alleged firearm offence.

“However, the said act does not provide any definition as to what constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’. As a result, there is in effect a ‘glass barrier’.”

The claim acknowledged that failure to grant bail was no fault of the judge, who it said had sought to interpret both the letter and spirit of the law.

It added: “It is however submitted that the prerequisite requirement for the undefined ‘exceptional circumstances’ in the said act before bail is granted is a violation of [Section] 13 (2)(3) of the Constitution.”

The claimant states that other jurisdictions have dealt with public concerns regarding bail by placing electronic tags on the ankles of accused people and releasing them on bail, so that their movements can be readily monitored, as was done in Barbados during the COVID-19 pandemic with visitors.

He is therefore asking the court to declare that there has been a breach of Section 13 (2)(3) of the Constitution, through the Bail Act imposing the undefined requirement for ‘exceptional circumstances’ before bail can be granted, and to order vindicatory damages.

In the Bill of Rights – chapter 3 of the Constitution – which lays the fundamental rights and freedoms under the supreme law, Section 13 affirms the right of a person arrested or detained to be told promptly, in a language they understand, why they are being held.

They must also be allowed, at their own expense, to hire and consult without delay a qualified attorney and to communicate privately with that lawyer.

Those under 16 must also be given a reasonable opportunity to communicate with a parent or guardian.

Section 13 also provides that a person arrested or detained for the purpose of being brought before a court, or on reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence, and not released, must be brought before a court as soon as reasonably practicable.

If not tried within a reasonable time, they must be released, either unconditionally or on reasonable conditions designed to ensure their appearance at a later date for trial or preliminary proceedings, without prejudice to future proceedings.

Deputy Solicitor-General Marsha Lougheed is appearing for the Attorney General.

The case was adjourned pending a new court date. 

(EJ)