Jamaican national Chevaneese Sasha Gaye-Hall is escorted by police to court. (Photo: File)

The Privy Council upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling to quash The Bahamas' first human trafficking conviction and said it would advise the Crown that the attorney general's appeal of the decision ought to be dismissed.

In January, Justices of Appeal Stella Crane-Scott, Abdulai Conteh and Neville Adderley overturned Chevaneese Sasha Gaye-Hall's 2014 conviction, ruling that it was of no effect because the judge who presided over her trial lacked the jurisdiction to do so.

Hall, a Jamaican national, was tried and convicted on four counts of trafficking in persons and two counts of unlawfully withholding two Jamaican national's passports.

The appellate court accepted that the charges of trafficking in persons and unlawful withholding of identification papers were not indictable offenses, so they could not be tried in the high court.

The 15-year concurrent sentences that were imposed were set aside.

Defense attorney Murrio Ducille submitted that the attorney general had no jurisdiction to file the voluntary bill of indictment, which transferred Hall's case to the Supreme Court for trial.

In a 21-page judgment yesterday, Lord Hughes (of the Privy Council) said that in order for the attorney general to have the authority to fast-track human trafficking cases to the Supreme Court for trial, Parliament would need to amend the law.

"Whether the attorney general ought to have power to prefer a voluntary bill in the case of category (ii) offenses, thus removing the necessity for a preliminary inquiry before the magistrate, is a matter of policy for Parliament; a comparatively simple legislative amendment can achieve that result if Parliament so decides," read the ruling.

It said the attorney general's power to use a voluntary bill of indictment (VBI) is subject to the statutory definition in the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for the VBI to be used in relation to categories (i) and (iii) offenses.

Category (i) offenses are triable only by judge and jury in the Supreme Court.

Category (ii) offenses are triable either way without the accused having any right to elect trial by jury.
And category (iii) offenses are triable either way, but the accused has a right to elect trial by jury pursuant to section 214 and schedule 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Privy Council said where an offense falls into category (ii), the prosecution may invite the magistrate to proceed either by way of summary trial or by way of preliminary inquiry with a view to committal to the Supreme Court for trial by a judge and jury on information.

It said the accused under these circumstances has no right to elect trial by jury, but the power belongs to the magistrate, who may determine either that a case which the prosecution would be content to be tried summarily ought to be sent to the Supreme Court, or that offense, which the prosecution would prefer to go the Supreme Court, ought to be tried summarily.

Lord Hughes said, "The effect of section 214 is thus to give to the accused person a right in the case of schedule 3 offenses to elect trial by jury in the Supreme Court, whether or not the prosecution would prefer summary trial before the magistrate.

"With respect to the way the section was described in the Court of Appeal, perhaps because of the submissions made before that court, section 214 does not give the accused the right to elect for summary trial," Lord Hughes said.

"That is clear from the provisions of section 214 (2) which show that either the magistrate or the attorney general is entitled to insist on the case being committed to the Supreme Court against the wishes of the accused.

"Conversely, however, if the accused wishes to be tried in the Supreme Court, the case must thereafter proceed by way of preliminary inquiry and, if there is a case to answer, by way of committal to that court."

Since Hall's case, other human trafficking cases have been referred to the magistrate's court for trial.
During trial, prosecutors said Hall recruited two women to work for her prostitution ring in January 2013.

The women, who prosecutors claimed were recruited separately, testified that they met Hall in Jamaica and she convinced them that she could get them jobs.

Prosecutors said Hall seized their passports once they came to the country and told them they would have to prostitute themselves.

Royston Jones Jr., Guardian Staff Reporter

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian