Madam President, I rise today to give my full and unequivocal support to the passage of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill, 2013, a Bill which I personally played a critical role in bringing to Parliament (FINALLY).

As I do so, I thank my God for guiding my path; I thank my wife and sons, my mother and in-laws, and my entire family for their unwavering support; of course, I express sincere gratitude to my Prime Minister and my Government for the high level of confidence that they continue to have in me.

As I begin my contributions on this Bill Madam President, I daresay that this PLP Administration is advancing this Bill on our strong Christian [Nation] principle of forgiveness. I am reminded of Ephesians 4:31-32:

“Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you”.

Madam President, I am immensely proud of this Progressive Liberal Party administration for taking this bold step and for doing so because it is the right thing to do (Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone, or forever hold thy peace).

Madam President, there is no greater issue facing our Country today than our fight against crime and criminality. Whilst we must remain steadfast in our efforts to reduce the unacceptable levels of violence and crime in New Providence and to a lesser extent, Grand Bahama, we must also remain sensitive to the uncomfortable fact, that convicted persons are apart of our society and once a sentence is served, the person is re-introduced into our society.

Before delving into the Bill itself Madam President, I wish to briefly make several observations. On each occasion when we come into theseHonorable Chambers, Members Opposite - oppose, oppose oppose! They twist every debate no matter what the subject to suit their limited purpose.

Regardless of the issue at hand, they have made every debate one on crime and violence, and adopt an attitude as though they were never in a position to address many of the crime challenges that we are experiencing today. It became so bad at our last hearing that Madam President had to issue stern warnings to Members Opposite.

Now in our quest for a Safer, Modern, Prosperous Bahamas, our Crime Platform rests on four broad pillars:

•     Crime Prevention

•     Crime Detection

•     Crime Prosecution

•     Rehabilitation

We are here today to deal with Rehabilitation.

I challenge Members Opposite to point to five of their Crime Initiatives that had any effect between 2007 and 2012 – but they can’t because they set about implementing their policy of Stopping, Reviewing and Cancelling everything…

Yes, a great concern remains the murders and the criminal gangs. But can the FNM account for its stewardship between 2007 & 2012? Absolutely not!

Madam President, more criminal gangs developed between 2007 and 2012 under the FNM than at any other point in our history. Members of these gangs were allowed to wreak havoc on society between that period and now today, we have to clean up the mess left by the FNM’s inaction and deal with today’s crime challenges.

As a matter of fact, the most violent gang “One Order” was allowed to spiral out of control, its members being responsible for more than 200 murders under their watch. Today, this criminal enterprise is still creating challenges but we are dealing with it.

Madam President, the Leader of Members Opposite spent much time questioning us what we are doing with these criminal gangs? While they did nothing, I can say that one of our first priorities was cut off the head of these gangs beginning with the One Order gang – something that the FNM flatly refused and lacked the capacity to do.

Madam President, most of the violence in New Providence today stem from young males who has a genesis or connection to the ‘One Order’ Gang. Had the FNM Government been responsive, a great deal of the violence that we are experiencing today could have been avoided. And it all began with the murder of Constable Jimmy Ambrose and the attempted murder of another police officer.

Could you imagine Madam President, as far back as 1999 (when the FNM was in power), an innocent young police officer (Constable Jimmy Ambrose - with his whole life in front of him) was cut down, stood over and shot (executed) multiple times.

Another police officer who came to his aid was also shot and has a permanent disability from the shooting. A third police officer (a key witness) who subsequently left the Police Force was also executed by this gang to avoid him from testifying.

The FNM administration (for whatever reason) refused to try this case which is dubbed the worst attack on law enforcement in the RBPF’s history. They were released on bail and killed all but one civilian key witness in the case.

When the PLP became the Government in 2002, the three attempts to try the case were obstructed when gang members tampered with the Jury, interfered with witnesses and executed witnesses.

In 2007, when the FNM regained the Government, they flatly refused to try the case over the five year period which resulted in this gang executing many more young men and expanding their turf. It got so bad, the Commissioner of Police had to issue every police officer involved in the case with a personal firearm 24/7 and providing them with a degree of security; can you imagine that – the police securing the police!

In 2012, following the PLP’s victory at the Polls, we have set about dismantling these gangs. The Leaders of “One Order” and “Fire and Tief” are no longer and we are making inroads into the other gangs. But our job is not an easy one and one which the FNM is not prepared to do!

As a matter of fact, not only did they gut the School-Based Policing Programme, the Urban Renewal Programme, the Tourism-based Programme, the Intelligence Programme and the Witness Protection Programme in 2007, the FNM left the Country completely broke and we had to scrap to find resources in our crime fight (E.g. They could not give account for $40 million that was in the Confiscated Assets Funds Account).

On the subject of homicides Madam President, we are facing significant challenges; but I note that we are not the only jurisdiction.

Last week, I attended the IDB Citizen Security Conference in Ecuador. We came together to review best practices and address common concerns.

I was amazed as the homicide figures for the Caribbean and Latin America was shared with us. Although considerably larger in size and population, many countries in the Caribbean and Latin America are all experiencing a spike in their homicide rates:

*Note: Countries expressed grave concern about gang-related violence and mass killings.

There is a common thread – Young uneducated males are both victims and perpetrators and most of the homicides are committed with the use of a firearm.

For our part, we have implemented:

•     Swift Justice
•     Urban Renewal Programme (table Report)
•     Tourism Based Police
•     School Based Police
•     Provided more than 70 new cars for the RBPF and 15 new buses
•     Recruited more than 200 Police Officers
•     Recruited more than 150 Prison Officers
•     Recruited more than 220 Defense Force Officers
•     Acquiring 9 new seacrafts and developing bases in southern and central Bahamas

Hundreds of guns have been seized along with substantial ammunition; substantial cash and significant quantities of cocaine and Marijuana have been seized.

Madam President, there is much more work to be done and we are steaming ahead towards a Safer Bahamas – Prevention, Detection, Prosecution…now on to Rehabilitation.

On the subject of rehabilitation, this Christie-led PLP Administration has introduced a new Correctional Services Act, 2013, which provides the legal framework towards rehabilitation of Offenders. We have appointed a new Commissioner (Patrick Wright) and have armed him with the tools necessary to move the Dept. of Corrections from a Penal institution to one of rehabilitation.

A significant number of programmes have been instituted, beginning with the creation of the state-of-the-art Baseball Diamond by Senator Gregory Burrows. Unfortunately, regardless of all our efforts, Inmates still leave the confines of the Prison with a criminal conviction, hence, the basis of this amendment.

To put this amendment before us into perspective Madam President, we must look at its historical passage.

We must also look at the thousands of Bahamians who have been given a second chance because of its provisions.

It was back in 1991 when the Progressive Liberal Party under the able leadership of the Late Sir Lynden Pindling passed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Then as now, there were and are some who do not see the need for allowing convicted persons who have not re-offended for a certain period to be able to remove the stigma of a criminal record from their lives. There are some in our society who believe that no person should be forgiven and that a convicted person should forever be stigmatised.

Thankfully, there were sufficient people who rejected such an approach and passed the Act in 1991.

In considering the Act, we all- whatever your personal views, must concede the irrefutable fact that since its passage, thousands of Bahamians who had long repaid their debt to society but whose life choices were permanently restricted because of previous convictions were able to ‘move on’ with their lives. There are grandmother, grandfathers, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers who made mistakes in their past who through this legislation, no longer have criminal records.

Madam President, when people think about persons with criminal convictions, they think of hardened criminals.

They think of persons who generally do not receive any sympathy from the public -Murderers, Drug Dealers and Rapists. This however, is only a small fraction of the story.  By and large, most who have benefitted have been hard working generally upright citizens who made a mistake and for which the courts issued punishment often times, non-custodial.

Take for example, a scenario which plays out in our courts daily - young people being found with marijuana.

Madam President, as we look internationally, we see various legislative initiatives to address drug offences and how governments should respond to persons found with small quantities of illegal drugs. The approach which we have taken, is to say that possession of such drugs is illegal and can result in a custodial sentence, if the person possesses a large quantity of illegal drugs or a small quantity but individually wrapped in two or more packages; the person is charged with possession with intent to supply and can face years in prison. Moreover, their records cannot be expunged.

Each year, countless dozens of persons and in particular young people are convicted with possession or possession with intent to supply. To the extent that they are drug addicts and not drug dealers, they need rehabilitation and treatment.

Unfortunately, our present legislative framework is not as sensitive to the need for fundamentally different responses to drug addicts as opposed to drug dealers.

Consequently, even if the convicted person is able to undergo treatment for their addiction, their conviction of a drug offence is likely to result in the person effectively becoming unemployable.

Madam President, when I commenced my presentation, I stated that I personally had a lot to do with the introduction to this amendment and I will explain.

In 2007, following the FNM’s victory at the polls, the Royal Bahamas Police Force became a ‘political football’. I was not ‘in the game’ but was thrown in Police Prosecutions as a form of punishment. Along with two other Superintendents and an able staff, I completely transformed the whole arm of police prosecutions. I began the tedious task of scrutinizing every single file that came before the courts and that was when I discovered a major problem – one which still requires further fixing.

On average, the RBPF places 125 criminal cases before our courts. Of that number, 25 or more cases are for Possession and/or Possession with intent to Supply Dangerous Drugs.

The Dangerous Drugs Act indicate that there is a presumption of ‘intent to supply’ where a person is found in possession of two or more packets.

Under section 22(1) of the DDA, chapter 228:

“It is an offence for a person to have a dangerous drug in his possession, whether lawfully or not, with intent to supply it to another in contravention of the provisions of this Act”.

Sub-section 3 provides:

“For the purpose of subsection (1), where a person is found in possession of two or more packets containing dangerous drugs, or a quantity of dangerous drugs in excess of such quantity as may be prescribed in regards to that drug, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that he was in possession of that drug with intent to supply it to another…”

Notably, contained in the Dangerous Drugs Regulations is a Schedule of what minimum quantities of dangerous drugs would give rise to the presumption. Hence, a minimum quantity of 10 grams of Cocaine or 500 grams of Indian Hemp (Marijuana) would give rise to the presumption of intent to supply – a non-expungable offence.

Over the years, thousands of young persons have been charged and convicted of possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply due to this anomaly (two or more packets) even though they were found in possession of quantities far below the minimum prescribed in the Schedule. This continues to be a major point of contention.

Equally there are misdemeanours (minor offences) which may not have resulted in a custodial sentence which in reality, gives the convicted person a far greater punishment – a criminal record.

Madam President, the reason for us needing this legislation is that we live in an unforgiving society with even more ‘unforgiveable employers’.

The present Act provides that for the specified offences and time periods (subject to certain exceptions), a conviction is expunged. Notwithstanding this, some employers pay for investigators to investigate a person’s past and find any skeletons in the prospective employees closet (whether it is related or not to the job that they are seeking). Moreover once employed, these same employers terminate (with consistency) employees who are charged with criminal offences.  No need to await a trial- they find a reason for termination – who is innocent in their eyes until proven guilty? I know from a practical level that it is difficult for anyone to properly address such behaviour, as often times, no legal cause of action can be proven- but this behaviour feeds into the mind-set that a conviction- regardless of its seriousness becomes a ‘life sentence’ making continued criminality more attractive.

GENERAL REFORMS

The first provision of the proposed legislation is a general reduction for eligible persons to have convictions expunged. The relevant time begins to run from the date of their last conviction, or fine where an applicant has not committed further offences. The Bill proposes a general reduction of from seven (7) years to five (5) years for the removal of qualified criminal convictions related to convictions tried summarily (Magistrates Court).

The Bill also proposes a general reduction from fourteen (14) to ten (10) years for the removal of qualified criminal convictions related to indictable only (Supreme Court) offences.

Under the existing legislation, Manslaughter in respect of which a sentence of five years or more has been imposed on conviction, Murder, Possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply, Treason, Armed robbery, Rape and Unlawful carnal knowledge contrary to section 286 of the Penal Code are excepted offences. This means that those offences, because of their nature are not expunged under the provisions relating to general time reduction.

SPECIFIC REFORM- YOUNG AND FIRST-TIME OFFENDERS

Madam President, in accordance with the covenant contained in the PLP’s Charter for Governance, this Bill proposes to give special attention to the young and first time offenders. For the purposes of this proposed legislation, a young offender is defined as an individual under the age of twenty-one (21).

This Bill proposes the establishment of an accelerated programme for the removal of criminal records for the young and first time offenders. To ensure that the provisions are not abused and that the public interest receives the greatest consideration possible, the removal will not be an automatic one.

The steps required to have a record removed under this provision are:

    The Applicant, at least two years after the completion of their prison sentence, may apply to the newly created Rehabilitation of Offenders Committee.

    The Committee will then vet the application and request such reports as it deems necessary from the Police, Prison Service, Educational Authorities and/or the Department of Social Services to assist them in their deliberations.

    If the Committee is minded that the person is deserving of having the conviction(s) removed, they will recommend the removal to the Minister of National Security.

    The Minister, after taking into account the various factors including public policy and safety, may then approve or reject the application.

    Upon the approval of the Application by the Minister, the criminal record of the Applicant will be expunged.

In looking at this issue, it is critical to balance the rights and interest of the public and convicted person. The current state of the Bahamian Labour Market shows that employers are harsh and unforgiving of persons with criminal records. Increasingly, this discrimination has began to extend into all sectors of the economy including various skilled and unskilled trades. The reluctance of employers to hire persons without a “clean” police record has resulted in hundreds of persons facing near permanent unemployment.

In passing the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, 1991 as with the amendment being proposed, this Progressive Liberal Party government has sought to achieve a balance between the need to protect the public interest and those of persons who deserve a second chance – to be forgiven.

Matthew 6:14 says:

“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you”.

Madam President, in supporting this legislation, I am mindful that there are people who may object to this Bill and even those who may suggest that this Bill amounts to going ‘soft on crime’. To these people I say:

•     This Bill does not reduce any custodial sentence or time spent in prison

•     The persons to whom this Bill relates have served their sentences and have not re-committed a criminal offence during the requisite period.

I wish to further assure the public that this Bill does not “reward” criminals or criminal activity, but rather, it seeks to create a system whereby ex-convicts can be rehabilitated in shorter periods and be re-integrated into our society.

The provisions of this Bill were carefully created to ensure that we provide a mechanism to assist those who are serious and committed to positively changing their lives’ whist providing sufficient safeguards to prevent its abuse.

I therefore remind all of us of Galatians 6:1-2:

“Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness”.

Madam President, I believe this is truly a transformative piece of legislation which creates for the first time in our history, a mechanism to allow first time and young offenders to obtain expedited record removal when they satisfy the new Committee and approved by the Minister.

Equally, ex-convicts can be rehabilitated under the Act 2 to 4 years faster than under the current legislative framework.

I am proud to support this legislation and look forward to the appointment and operation of the Committee.

May our God and Saviour continue to bless and protect the people of this Great Commonwealth.