A Belmont man, accused of killing a fellow resident in 2014, has become the first person to be granted bail for murder.
Delivering a decision yesterday morning, High Court Master Nalini Singh upheld Joel King’s bail application based on a recent Court of Appeal ruling on the constitutionality of precluding judicial officers from considering bail for people charged with murder.
King, also known as Joel “Catty” Grimes, who is accused of murdering Nkosi Harricharan at Hermitage Road in Belmont on April 15, 2014, was granted $1.5 million bail with a surety and was given a cash alternative of $750,000.
“This court is satisfied that with the imposition of appropriate conditions attached to bail, coupled with the requirement for a surety, it can effectively mitigate the State’s fear that this Applicant will fail to surrender to custody,” Singh said.
Singh also applied 21 strict conditions for his bail including ordering him to report to the Belmont Police Station twice weekly; to reside by his mother’s home at Rigsby Street, in Belmont, and not leave there between 6 pm and 6 am unless it is for an emergency.
He was ordered to not contact or communicate with State witnesses or come within 100 feet of them and was barred him from operating a licensed or PH taxi, from visiting a bar or restaurant selling alcohol and from attending parties.
He was ordered to remain in Trinidad and was told that he could not be found on a boat or airplane. If any of the conditions are breached his bail would be immediately revoked.
In her decision, Singh noted that while the nature and seriousness of the offence would provide a greater incentive to avoid attending court, such considerations cannot be the sole factor in considering whether he should be granted bail.
“I accordingly conclude that the nature and seriousness of the offence is just one consideration to be weighed in the balance and not by itself a ground for refusing bail,” Singh said, as she noted that she also had to consider King’s criminal record before being charged with the crime and his social ties.
She noted that King lived at his family’s home in Belmont for his entire life and was employed as an electrician with his father.
“Whereas strong community ties in the form of a family home and a job do not serve as an actuarial basis for assessing the risk of flight, it redounds to the benefit of the applicant that he has ties to his community,” Singh said.
“This, in the opinion of this Court, gives him less reason to abscond,” she added.
As part of her decision, Singh did a comprehensive analysis of the State’s evidence against King as she noted that a strong case would show that he may have an incentive to abscond.
She noted that the evidence against King was mainly circumstantial as it was largely based on the evidence of another resident Kyle Williams who was allegedly walking with Harricharan when he was shot.
Singh stated that the witness, who claimed he knew King for a decade before the incident, said that he saw King pull out a gun and point it in their direction. The witness also claimed that both he and Harricharan ran away in different directions and he later heard that Harricharan was found in a drain with a gunshot wound to his head.
“On the State’s case then, neither the eyewitness, nor any other witness actually testifies that they saw the Applicant shoot the deceased,” she said.
Singh pointed out that Williams was murdered in March 2016 and never testified in the preliminary inquiry in the case.
“So he is not available to clarify or reconcile or explain anything which was said pertaining to the accounts of how the shooting occurred,” Singh said.
Singh said that she raised the possibility of King being placed on electronic monitoring as part of the conditions of his bail and King offered to be subjected to a 24 hour home curfew, but the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) refused after having discussions with the Director of Electronic Monitoring of the Ministry of National Security.
King benefited from a landmark Court of Appeal ruling in a case brought by former murder accused Akili Charles, which was delivered by Chief Justice Ivor Archie and Appellate Judges Mira Dean-Armorer and Malcolm Holdip.
The appeal panel ruled that Section 5(1) of the Bail Act of 1994, which previously precluded judicial officers from considering bail for persons accused of murder, was unconstitutional.
The appeal panel ruled that the segment of the Bail Act was not reasonably justifiable in a society that is concerned about the rights and freedoms of the individual.
“The unanimous view of this panel is that, by removing the jurisdiction of High Court Judges to grant bail to persons charged with murder, section 5 has trespassed on a core judicial function,” CJ Archie, who wrote the judgement, said.
The Office of the Attorney General applied for the judgement to be stayed pending its final appeal to the United Kingdom-based Privy Council but it was denied.
The AG’s Office is now expected to pursue the suspension application before the Privy Council.
King was represented by Larry Williams and Toni Roberts, while Veonna Neale-Munroe and Chanelle Moe represented the State.
