Was Supreme Court Judge Reluctant to Offer Marroquin Bail?

Marroquin’s bail application was denied when he appeared before Justice Herbert Lord, who upheld objections made by Crown Counsel Riis Raymond Cattouse that the Peruvian was a flight risk.  Attorney ‘Dickie’ Bradley explained the judge’s reluctance.

Richard ‘Dickie’ Bradley, Attorney for Luis Marroquin

Richard Bradley

“The judge is a judge who is reluctant to give foreigners bail, even when they have children in the country he has that reluctance and lawyers know that.  In any event, I was not originally on the case but we made the application and we were lucky that Crown Counsel Cattouse had brought the statements from the arresting officer, so that that was before the court and that, in terms of the facts of the case, in terms of any evidence against Luis Marroquin was like nothing.  We had the opportunity to draw the attention of the judge to the section of the law which requires that if you are preparing for a crime, you have to have the tools.  You have to be in possession, in control, or at least you are controlling whoever has the item, that neither did not apply.  There is no evidence of that.  He is not controlling the foreigners, he doesn’t have anything to do with it.  The judge denied bail, saying that “Oh, it’s a recent matter, he could always come back to court and so.”  It’s not fair to a person who is innocent and in the eyes of the law there is the presumption of innocence.  I was taken aback, but in any event, you know those of us who, you don’t see me with any locks but I am Rastafari.  So Jah has been good.  The DPP was able to get the file and even though this matter was on indictment which means Marroquin would be sitting in prison for a long time, a year or more, the DPP, in looking at the file, is not saying he is innocent or guilty or not, but the evidence against that gentleman is not sufficient for him to even be taken to a trial.  You have nothing against him that would hold up.”