7,424 judgments 29,712 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment

Luis Warren v Attorney General - Ruling

G 2010/2000 · 2000-05-04

Bail application pending trial; Previous non-compliance with bail conditions; Risk of reoffending and policy considerations

Full metadata
Full text13 paragraphs Download PDF

Use paragraph links to cite this judgment, or download the original PDF. Select text to copy a passage.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands — Civil Division
Cause No. G 2010/2000
Between
Luis Warren
- v -
Attorney General - Ruling
Before
Smellie CJ
Judgment delivered 2000-05-04

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN
CASE NO: 2010/2000 (1-3)

BETWEEN: LUIS WARREN APPLICANT
AND: HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDENT

Appearances:
Mr. John Furniss of Collins, Broadhurst & Furniss for the applicant
Miss Jane Rowley Q.C. for the Crown.

RULING

Pending his trial which is now underway but which has been adjourned, the defendant applies for bail.

Like the Learned Magistrate who dealt with the matter by refusing bail, I am concerned at the manifest lack of regard for authority shown by the defendant. His failure to comply with previous conditions of bail is such that a Court can have no confidence that he will observe new conditions of bail as a matter of his own volition. In effect therefore strict compliance would involve the Court requiring that the police become actively involved in monitoring the defendant's movements.

Those are not conditions which I would regard as appropriate in this case.

The defendant has forfeited the necessary trust which the Court might repose in him. I have concerns that he would fail to observe the conditions of bail and might reoffend.
There is another reason for not granting bail: If proven, the allegations of involvement in the incident for which he is now being tried would indicate that some period of incarceration is likely, given in particular his previous history.

Time spent in custody until the conclusion of the trial would then be required to count towards his sentence. From all I have heard, the case against him is strong. The learned Magistrate conducting his trial was correct in having awaited the testimony of the first witness before deciding on the matter of bail.

I can see no reason to defer from the view she has taken in the exercise of her discretion.

Application refused. Remanded to Northward Prison.

ANTHONY SMELLIE
CHIEF JUSTICE

DATED THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2000.

Find similar