The Court of Appeal in Trinidad and Tobago has consolidated several pending appeals challenging key provisions of the Bail (Amendment) Act 2024, which significantly altered the bail process for individuals charged with murder. The amendment removed the presumption in favor of bail, requiring accused persons to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to secure release. The Act was introduced to tighten bail restrictions for serious offenses, particularly murder. At a hearing on October 27, Justices Gillian Lucky, Mira Dean-Armorer, and Carla Brown-Antoine highlighted the divergent interpretations of the amended law by High Court judges. To ensure judicial consistency, the appellate panels agreed to hear all related appeals together in early 2026. Justice Lucky emphasized the importance of this issue, noting that attorneys for appellants will have access to submissions from other cases and may file additional arguments by November 30. She also urged lawyers to review the Hansard record, as one of the appeal questions was initially raised in Parliament by the then-opposition. The Chief Justice approved the consolidation of cases, and several legal bodies, including the Public Defenders’ Department, the Law Association, the Criminal Bar Association, and the Office of the Attorney General, will be invited to contribute as interested parties. The Bail (Amendment) Act 2024 was enacted following the Privy Council’s 2022 ruling in Akili Charles, which deemed the previous blanket denial of bail for murder accused unconstitutional. The amended law permits judges to grant bail if exceptional circumstances are proven, imposes a 120-day restriction on bail for serious offenses, and mandates a five-year review of its operation. Courts have since grappled with interpreting Section 5 of the Act, particularly whether it allows bail applications after 180 days in custody or one year without trial without requiring proof of exceptional circumstances. The state maintains that the amendment does not create an automatic right to bail but merely allows applications after a specified period, still requiring exceptional circumstances. Justice Lucky stressed the need for a consistent judicial approach, asking, ‘What is the correct test to be applied?’ Additionally, three appeals against convictions and sentences for various offenses were withdrawn during the hearing, with the judges affirming the convictions and ordering that sentences commence from the dates of conviction. A fourth appeal was also withdrawn.