Posted by Hiuare on 15/5/2006, 2:56 pm, in reply to "Re: 2 Ministers Bail" 2. In response to the above, in Solomon Islands, reliance on bail application to any accused is still made under the common law. In essence, there are no specific or strict guidelines to assist the Court in determining bail. However, the general guideline which the court is bound to observe is to balance the common law right to bail with the fundamental rights that afforded to any accused under the SI Constitution. Judge Brown's test of discretion is one of many that the Constitution commits the Parliament and Courts to develop with regards to the development of bail laws in SI. 3. The issue of whether the Magistrate had exercised that discretion objectively or just, is always unsafe to accept since it is an open ended test. 4. For this matter, how much weight the Magistrate had placed upon balancing the conflicting evidence submitted in Court? How much weight he placed upon the changing circumstance of the accused as being a Minister of the State? Did the Doctor who provides the medical report was called to Court and examined in order to prove the merit of that report? Did the Magistrate called any experienced doctors to counter or verify that? Did the Magistrate called upon the prison doctors or medical officers whoever that might be responsible for providing specific diagnosis to the accused? Amazing his sugar level is 26 clearly indicates to the Magistrates that that was a very serious situation and in order to verify that he needs to hear evidence from experience doctors. Also the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether the present medication is appropriate since all human beings the safest sugar level we should have is 4-6. Based on those medical professional opinions, the Magistrate would exercise his discretion? If any of this has not been done, then, what weight the Magistrate had adduced out of the state's evidence to totally ignored the Defence grounds. Because of this, the Magistrate dispensation of his discretionary power in the present case is not seen to be done fairly. 6. This discretionary test is always unsafe to adopt on a case to case basis, therefore, this warrants the State to enact a Bail Act in order to give certain statutory tests when determining bail application. Otherwise, this discretionary test might be influenced by external interferences, which might give rise to the is
202.151.28.44
1. Thank you JAK for that in depth reply which gives greater insight into the present issue of bail.
5. Total denial as in the present case, based on the Brown’s discretionary test draws doubt on the legal nexus exists between the common law rights and the accused Constitutional rights.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread