The recent decision by Senior Counsel Andrew Pilgrim to act as surety for three accused individuals has reignited public discussion on the role of bail in our justice system—particularly its accessibility to people of limited means.
Pilgrim stood surety in the amount of $120 000 for Veronica Caroline Bascom, her son’s partner Afiyah Akilah Asher Mounter, and Javairne Jason Thompson—relatives of Kishon Thomas, the fugitive who escaped custody earlier this year.
The three are charged with harbouring Thomas, among other allegations. Though a magistrate approved their release on bail at $40 000 each, the defendants could not afford it. Pilgrim, citing their vulnerability, chose to step in so that they would not remain in custody simply because they lacked financial resources.
For clarity, in Barbados, individuals granted bail are not required to pay the stated amount in cash; instead, they must secure a surety—someone who owns property of equal value—to guarantee their release.
The case raises an important and complex question: Should the ability to access bail—and with it, the ability to return home while awaiting trial—depend on wealth?
On one hand, bail is there to ensure that people accused of crimes appear in court. It is not intended to serve as a form of pre-trial punishment. In fact, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our legal system. Once a magistrate or judge has reviewed the matter and granted bail, that decision reflects a reasoned assessment that the accused are not considered flight risks or threats to public safety.
In that context, it is understandable why many, including Pilgrim, view the inability to pay bail as an unfair barrier that disproportionately affects poorer people. A person’s economic status should not determine whether they await trial in freedom or behind bars. This concern is not limited to Barbados; many other jurisdictions grapple with the same question, and several have introduced reforms aimed at preventing ‘wealth-based detention’.
At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the concerns of the public. When individuals are charged with serious offences such as harbouring a fugitive, there is often unease about their release. Public sentiment can be especially heightened in cases that involve violence or eluding police officers.
There is also the question of optics and precedent. While Pilgrim’s action may be rooted in compassion and legal principle, not everyone will agree with an attorney taking such an active role in the bail process of clients or former clients. Some may worry about the message it sends, particularly if the accused later fail to appear in court or reoffend while on bail.
However, as Pilgrim pointed out, the vast majority of people in Barbados who are granted bail do return to court. He also noted that in over 30 years of practice, very few of those released have absconded. Still, the fears of the public should not be dismissed outright. Judicial decisions must consider not only the rights of the accused, but also the confidence and security of the broader community.
The law does provide for discretion in setting bail conditions, including the amount. Ideally, this discretion allows magistrates to adjust bail to the circumstances of the case and the individuals involved. But in practice, the system may sometimes unintentionally place poorer accused at a disadvantage.
It is here that the legal system may benefit from a broader policy conversation—one that balances equity and fairness with public safety and accountability. Perhaps it is time to explore reforms that make bail more accessible to those who meet the legal threshold, while still maintaining safeguards that ensure public trust.
Attorney Martie Garnes, convenor of the Criminal Law Committee of the Barbados Bar Association, has stated that while it is unusual for a lawyer to act as surety, there may be circumstances in which such a move is justified to prevent a miscarriage of justice based on poverty alone.
Ultimately, this case offers no easy answers, but it does present an opportunity for reflection. Bail is a legal tool. It should be applied fairly, transparently, and with sensitivity to both the rights of the accused and the concerns of the public.
The goal of any justice system should be to strike that important balance, thus ensuring that no one is punished simply for being poor.
The post Bail, equity, and public confidence in justice appeared first on Barbados Today.
