In a ruling that has significant implications for the government's much-touted electronic monitoring program, a judge has ruled that officials responsible for tracking people out on bail with ankle bracelets have no authority to impose additional restrictions on accused criminals without further court approval.

Senior Supreme Court Justice Jon Isaacs handed down the ruling after Melvin Maycock Sr. (who has since been convicted on drug and firearms charges) applied to have his ankle bracelet removed, because of repeated interference from personnel at the Electronic Monitoring Center (EMC).

During an application, Maycock said he was ordered to return to the mainland while in a dinghy off Potter's Cay on June 18, 2011. He went to the Central Police Station, where officers from the Drug Enforcement Unit arrested him. Maycock was detained at the station for two days and was only released after he agreed to conditions set by an Inspector Lightfoot and another man regarding his mobility.

In the recently released judgment, Isaacs said, "While a person may consent to limitations placed on his freedom of movement it ought not be done in circumstances where the individual has already been the subject of limitations imposed by the court.

"He ought not to have to surrender more of his rights to secure his freedom, paticularly when the court did not see fit to specifically impose the conditions on him in the first place."

Maycock, who was tagged with a monitoring device and ordered to report daily to the Central Police Station, asked the court to remove the bracelet because of the repeated interference.

He made the application to modify the terms of his bail conditions on July 21. Isaacs did not order the removal of the bracelet. However, he decided to give a written ruling on the powers of the monitoring center because of the novelty and importance of the matter.

The government launched the electronic monitoring program in November 2010.
Jomo Campbell, who represented Maycock, said the staff of the EMC repeatedly told him he had left his restricted zone and he had been forced to return home under threats of police action.

Isaacs said, "The interference with an individual's liberty is a grave step which is not to be taken lightly. The decision to detain an individual must be taken with due regard for the law. Failure to have such regard leaves the person detaining, liable to an action for false imprisonment."

Isaacs said the Crown had to request the court order that additional restrictions be placed on bail applicants fitted with ankle bracelets. He said, "It is for the court in the exercise of its discretion to determine just how onerous the [bail] conditions will or will not be."

Isaacs said his bail order in the Maycock case did not require him to agree to further restrictions on his liberty. Consequently, the EMC could not fetter his freedom of movement beyond the limits imposed by the court.

Maycock was sentenced to three years' imprisonment on firearms possession and marijuana possession with intent to supply on November 1.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian