By Christine larbey

As is usual at the end of the assizes last December Dominic Soudine, operations manager at Bordelais, brought Justice Kenneth Benjamin up-to-date on the state of affairs where the justice system is concerned. Soudine said "the remand situation" had not improved. Some sixty-four people were held over on charges of murder—which said much about the reluctance on the part of lawyers to pursue bail in behalf of their clients.

Consequently, many are forced to spend from three to four years behind bars even before they have appeared before a judge and jury. On Tuesday I met a 47-year-old mother of six who has been on remand since January 2005, accused of murdering her then employer. She, like so many others facing her predicament, is uneducated and poor. Through her lawyer Stanley Felix, she gave me a hint of what she has been through these last three years behind bars. Her biggest worry, she said, was her family.

"My daughter visits," she said, "but we are only allowed four half-hour visits a month. It’s very hard not knowing what’s going on with my children. Worse, that even if I knew, I could do nothing to help." The lime-green polyester suit she wore to her last court appearance was a gift from a kindly stranger. It wasn’t much to look at but it was clean. Through a stream of tears and a runny nose, she spoke in a hoarse whisper sometimes.

"I’ve tried to learn something while at Bordelais. I have learned how to crochet. There’s not much to do most of the time, so we just sit around feeling sorry for ourselves, wondering if we have a future, worrying about our loved ones who are being punished even though they have done nothing to deserve such punishment."

She said she spent most of her time locked up. "The officers sometimes have to attend meetings, so they just put us in a cell. Sometimes we have to shout for an officer when there’s an emergency. I praise God everyday that at least I get to see my children, even for a short time. I know they need me."

As if being imprisoned for something she claims she did not do were not enough, there was also the recent displacement of her family after someone set fire to her house. "I lost everything," she sobbed. "The children lost everything. I only heard about the fire when an officer came to my cell and said, ‘You know your house burn!’ I felt so helpless."

She blew her nose on a crumpled Kleenex, cleared her throat before going on: "My sisters put me here, I don’t know why they did it . . ." Since going to Bordelais, she said, she had been hospitalized several times. "I have two cysts in my breasts and I suffer from high blood pressure. Whenever I am particularly stressed out blood pours from my nose and mouth. Sometimes I just knit to beat the stress. I have knitted six vests in no time at all."The prison food was no picnic. "Quite often we pick out roaches and flies in our meals," she said.

Currently there are fifteen other female remand prisoners at Bordelais. She often volunteers for work in the kitchen which pays fifty cents a day. "I have no idea what happens to the money," she said. "It’s hard work and sometimes the officers treat us badly, shouting at us for the smallest thing. But I take all the insults. It’s something to do. It’s better than just sitting around thinking about my poor children suffering alone. I get telephone calls sometimes, from my daughters, the younger ones. They tell me their problems. But what can I do for them from the prison?"

She talked about the time it was taking for her case to come before a judge. "I have no information about that. They gave me a date but I had no papers, so I couldn’t go." Her lawyer recalled their first meeting: "I will never forget that day at the courthouse. In a weak voice, she said, ‘Can you help me, please?’ I talked with her and decided I just had to do something. I later met with her at Bordelais and read her file."

He later made a no-case submission in her behalf at the preliminary inquiry. Alas, the woman was committed to stand trial at the high court. "I have to do this case. I believe what’s happening to her is so wrong. So, here I am again this morning to apply for bail." At Tuesday’s hearing before Justice Kenneth Benjamin, the court clerk read out the charge that the woman had murdered William Andrew of Waterworks Road, Castries on January 30, 2005. She pleaded not guilty.

Her lawyer urged the judge to use his discretion. "Under the Constitution," said the lawyer, "everyone has the right to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence. There ought to be a balancing of the scales of justice. The proper test is quite simple. The question to be asked is whether the defendant will appear in court when asked to do so."

He went on: "The Criminal Code outlines conditions that may be imposed by the court." He said the prosecution had objected to bail on the ground that the defendant would fail to surrender to the court "purely because of the gravity of the charge against her." Said her lawyer in response, there was no substance to the objection

Further, he said, there was no reason to suspect she would interfere with witnesses. As for the objection to bail based on "strong evidence she had committed the offence with which she is charged," her lawyer contended that "we don’t know that." Indeed, he submitted, "it was his view that the case was without merit and the evidence points to a clear acquittal. There is no physical evidence, a relative had so far given three versions of what had transpired."

Finally her lawyer asked: "Does it serve the public any better if she is made to continue staying behind bars on remand?In the interests of justice, and considering the facts of her case, she should be allowed bail to resettleher family now living all over the place with different people. That particular matter has been hell on her health." The prosecution continued to object. Finally the judge said: "Want me to tell you why so many are still on remand? Should I exercise my discretion and say it is mainly convention not to grant bail?"

Again the prosecution cited the seriousness of the charge. At last the judge asked for a copy of the Constitution, then retired to his chambers. Thirty minutes later he summoned the woman’s lawyer and the prosecutor. Meanwhile the woman sat on a bench, patiently awaiting the outcome. In the interim two of her daughters sneaked into the court. Another half hour elapsed before court resumed.

Now the judge said: "The prosecution objected on three grounds. He said murder is prevalent but offered nothing in support of his statement. Nothing was presented regarding special circumstances. The crown’s position is one of convention. He then cited a number of Privy Council decisions before saying he was in favor of bail in the sum of $50,000 or two suitable sureties.

The woman was ordered to surrender her travel documents to the authorities and to report daily to CID. She was also restricted from communication with witnesses in the case and ordered to reside with her daughter until she returned to court on May 5." She was free to spend Easter with her family. If earlier she did not believe in miracles, chances are she now believes every word of the resurrection story!