THE High Court has issued a critical ruling to address procedural deficiencies in managing and disclosing criminal records in bail applications.
In an order on November 28, Justice Trevor Jones ordered the police’s criminal records office (CRO) to provide the results of all its inquiries into pending matters in bail applications.
If a matter remains unresolved, the CRO must supply the next scheduled hearing date. If the police officer who charged the accused applying for bail cannot be contacted, this must also be disclosed.
Jones’s ruling covers all cases where an accused’s criminal records are submitted during bail applications. He also ordered a copy of the ruling to be sent to the Commissioner of Police for distribution to all CROs in the police service.
Jones was presiding over Kent Thomas's bail application and highlighted significant issues in the accuracy and reliability of records maintained by the police.
“It is evident that the current system the TTPS employs to update its criminal records is unreliable.
“This lack of reliability undermines the court’s trust in the accuracy of the records…Therefore, it is imperative that courts address the practice of requiring applicants to provide magistrates’ court extracts to update or correct the CRO’s record.
“This practice is unfair for several reasons.”
In his ruling, Jones recommended courts discontinue the practice of requiring applications to provide extracts in their applications.
Thomas, also known by several aliases, including "Austin Liverpool" and "Austin John," "Bummer," "Bammon," "Bandit Boy" and "Kent," is before the San Fernando court on kidnapping and firearm-related charges. He appeared in court in May 2022 and was denied bail.
In his bail application, the police provided a criminal record with over 25 charges recorded by the CRO.
The charges spanned multiple years, with only one resulting in conviction, nine determined in his favour, and 15 recorded as pending.
Discrepancies emerged between Thomas’ claims and the CRO records, with his attorney, Yves Jacques Nicholson, asserting eight of the 15 pending matters had been dismissed.
Nicholson asked the judge to resolve how courts should handle contested pending matters during bail applications and how accurate and timely information could be ensured in such proceedings.
In his ruling, Jones noted that a “pattern of inevitability” had emerged in disputed bail applications which shifted the burden of proof to the bail applicants to provide court extracts or other evidence to correct errors in the CRO records.
“The origin of this issue lies in the traditional reliance on a paper-based system for recording judicial decisions…
“While the Judiciary’s efforts to digitise court records have significantly mitigated these challenges for more recent cases, a notable gap remains for decisions that originated within the catchment of the paper-based system.”
However, he said, "If applicants are effectively being compelled to furnish evidence of their innocence as a prerequisite fo
