Attorney secures bail for client despite lawyers’ no-show

A man who has been in custody since last Monday was finally released on bail yesterday after his attorney-at-law Michael Jordan raised concerns in court that he was charged with an offence that did not apply to the circumstances of the case.

Jordan said his client was driving a motor car when police stopped him and took him into custody.

“In their report they are saying that my client’s car was suspected to have been leading a car, which was reportedly stolen. So they took him to custody for that,” Jordan said. “He was not questioned neither was he put on an identification parade or anything like that.”

Instead, Jordan said he was informed on Friday that his client had been charged with unlawful possession of property.

“The property is not stolen because he had permission to drive the vehicle from the owner,” he said. “We have the owner of the motor vehicle, and she’s prepared to come to court and [give] a statement that she’s the one that gave him permission to drive the car.”

Jordan said his decision to appear in court yesterday, despite members of the legal profession withdrawing their services in protest over aspects of the Firearms Act, was because of his client’s circumstances.

“We took a decision not to work today, but my client has been in custody since last week Monday and he is an innocent man,” Jordan said. “I really couldn’t let him down today. I couldn’t ask for him to remain in custody another day.”

He said although the Advocates Association and the Jamaica Bar Association decided to withdraw their services “there are unique circumstances where we would still have to appear on behalf of our clients, especially if it would cause them a grave injustice if counsel did not appear”.

“I’m at one with the associations and it needs to be addressed so justice can prevail for all persons.”

In his client’s case, the circumstances prompted questions in court about why the man had remained in custody since Monday and whether the charge laid against him was appropriate. Jordan said the issue of the length of his client’s detention also raised the possibility of false imprisonment. The case, Jordan said, highlights what he described as a recurring problem in the criminal justice system, where police and defence attorneys clash over the offences for which people are charged.

“When we tell police officers that they can’t charge persons with certain offences, they tell us that they can,” he said.

“I can’t tell the police what to charge people with. I’m just defence counsel and I’m there representing my client to the best of my ability,” he said. “It’s up to the police to know what it is that they’re supposed to charge somebody for.”

Jordan pointed to another case in which a client was charged with corruptly soliciting after a member of the public alleged that police officers took money from her in exchange for not charging her with an offence. He said the matter subsequently resulted in one of the police officers being charged under the Firearms Act after he was found with more ammunition than he was legally authorised to carry.

Jordan said both officers were then taken before the Gun Court, although he maintained that his client had not committed a firearms offence.

“I was telling them from day one that they have no authority to charge my client before the Gun Court since he hasn’t committed a firearm offence but they insisted on taking him there.”

Jordan said the matter was eventually resolved after the Chief Justice determined that it had been taken before the wrong court.