Bail revoked for dad accused of sexually abusing daughter (Freeport, Bahamas)

UNNAMED DAD had simple bail conditions: stay away from from your teenage daughter you were accused of sexually abusing. Guess Dad couldn't handle that, because two months later, he's back before the judge and the bail is revoked.

http://freeport.nassauguardian.net/national_local/321311368502663.php

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Local/National News
Bail is revoked for father accused of having sexual relations with daughter
By LEDEDRA MARCHE
Senior FN Reporter

A 36-year-old father accused of having sexual relations with his daughter got his bail revoked yesterday after he violated its conditions, despite his lawyer's attempt to keep him out of jail.

Magistrate Andrew Forbes, on hearing the matter brought before the court by the Department of Social Services and listening to the testimony of three juvenile witnesses, insisted that the terms of the young father's condition were simple.

In fact, the magistrate noted that the order that he have no direct or indirect contact with his 16-year-old daughter was for his benefit.

The Freeport man was arraigned before Magistrate Forbes in Court 2 on June 15, 2009 for having unlawful sexual intercourse with a dependent. The offence is alleged to have occurred between February and March 2009. He was not required to enter a plea as it was an indictable offence.

The matter was adjourned to October 19.

The 37-year-old was granted $10,000 bail with two sureties and ordered to have no direct or indirect contact with the virtual complainant and he was required to report to the Central Police Station.

Magistrate Forbes also ordered that the teenage girl be placed in the ward of the state and be remitted to Child Protective Services until the matter was resolved.

At that time, the young father was represented by Attorney Paul Wallace-Whitfield.

When he appeared again before Magistrate Forbes yesterday for the special hearing, he was represented by Attorney Simeon Brown.

Pointing out that on the last occasion his directives to the defendant and his then lawyer and the consequences if the order was violated were plain and clear, Magistrate Forbes said he could not understand why the defendant was back before him.

"I find it somewhat troubling now to be revisiting this case less than two months after making the order. It bothers me to no end," the magistrate said.

He revealed, too, that the court had demanded the defendant be brought in so it can determine whether the allegations are in fact true, whether or not the defendant violated the terms and conditions that were granted and whether the court needed to revoke bail.

Three teenage girls and Julita Ingraham of the Child Welfare Division took the stand yesterday, telling the court of instances the juvenile ran away, arranged for at least one of them to meet with her father whom she referred to and passed off as her boyfriend at the park and occasions when she met and went off with him, particularly at Goombay, at the ice cream palour and in Port Lucaya.

The court also heard that the teen has been missing for several weeks and cannot be found.
Police Prosecutor Sergeant Charlton Smith pointed out that after hearing the evidence from the witnesses, it appears to be consistent with the report from Social Service.

"If the court had taken that into consideration if would appear that one of the conditions has been violated," he said, adding that the court will have to consider what to do and how best to circumvent it and create a circumstance to ensure that the integrity of the case is not disturbed.
Initially, Attorney Brown had begged to differ with the court that there was only one decision to make, arguing the court could use its discretion.

Magistrate Forbes had revealed that the court had set its conditions which is an order and would have to act on it if it was violated.

Brown insisted, however, that the court can penalize anyone who disobeys the court order and the court can come to a multiplicity of conditions and remedies, but he did not agree that the court only has one remedy.

Magistrate Forbes noted that he made it quite clear that if the defendant violates the conditions, his bail would be revoked.

After the testimonies of the three teens, Attorney Brown agreed that the evidence suggested that there was "at the very least indirect contact with the virtual complainant."

He then asked the court to consider the circumstances under which the violation occurred, pointing out that the virtual complainant would have initially made contact with the defendant.

The problem, Attorney Brown told the court, is that his client is emotionally attached to the child and while there are some criminal allegations that are to be determined, the child is determined to have a relationship with her father.

In that regard, he noted, the court assumes the teenager is not going to try to make contact with his client, or try to entice him or encourage him to have contact with her.

"Your care will not end because you are accused of molesting your own flesh and blood. All I'm asking you to do is to have a little bit of understanding as to why he may have violated to some extent," Brown said.

Magistrate Forbes then revealed that the court had only two options — accept the $5,000 bond from each of his two sureters or revoke the young father's bail and remand him to Her Majesty's Prison until October 19.

The 37- year-old was also caught up on five traffic bench warrants stemming as far back as 2006. He pleaded guilty to four of them, which totalled $575, and in default of payment he is to spend two days in jail on each count to run concurrently.