In a landmark ruling that questions a key provision of Barbados’ newly amended Bail Act, the High Court has ordered the immediate release on bail of a 16-year-old boy who had been held in adult remand prison at Dodds on firearm charges since December 2024. The case, centered on a constitutional challenge to the law’s vague “exceptional circumstances” requirement for bail in gun-related cases, has reignited debates over the balance between public safety and fundamental constitutional rights for accused persons.
Within minutes of Justice Bryan Weekes delivering his bail ruling on Monday, the minor was reunited with his waiting parents, who were present throughout the court proceedings. Speaking with local outlet Barbados TODAY, the teenager’s mother offered a brief but emotional reaction to the long-awaited release: “I feel great and elated about everything. I feel good; that is all.”
Through his legal representation led by attorney Lalu Hanuman, the 16-year-old — who has formally pleaded not guilty to the firearm charges against him — argues that the Bail Act’s requirement for “exceptional circumstances” before bail can be granted in gun offences is unconstitutional. The law, Hanuman stresses, fails to provide any clear definition of what qualifies as “exceptional circumstances”, effectively creating an insurmountable barrier that leaves accused people in pre-trial detention indefinitely, even before they have been proven guilty of any crime.
Hanuman explained that five separate bail hearings had already been held for his client, presided over by Justice Laurie Ann Smith-Bovell. In each instance, the court was bound by Section 6(10) of the amended Bail Act, which mandates that “exceptional circumstances” must be demonstrated to grant bail to anyone charged with a firearms offence. “The new act does not define what constitutes exceptional circumstances, leaving persons on remand, in effect, permanently deprived of their liberty even though they haven’t been found guilty,” Hanuman told the court.
Justice Weekes, who described the case as highly unusual, granted bail set at $75,000 with two sureties, and ordered that the teenager be released into the direct custody of his parents. The government, represented by Deputy Solicitor-General Marsha Lougheed, had already agreed to the bail amount, though it initially requested only one surety. The judge accepted all additional bail conditions proposed by the State, which include: requiring the minor to reside at an approved location; imposing a daily 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. curfew; requiring him to surrender all valid travel documents; and mandating that he check in at the District ‘B’ Police Station three times a week between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. In approving the conditions, Justice Weekes emphasized that the teen must always be accompanied by one of his parents, given that he is still a minor. Hanuman confirmed he had no objections to any of the court’s imposed conditions.
Early in the proceedings, Justice Weekes raised significant concerns about the fact that the minor was being held in an adult remand facility rather than the Government Industrial School, the designated youth detention center located just hundreds of meters from the Dodds Prison complex. Responding to this criticism, Lougheed explained that the youth facility lacks the capacity and specialized infrastructure to hold the boy. She added that the teen is housed in a dedicated single cell at Dodds Prison, with no cellmate, and maintained that the State’s repeated refusal to grant bail prior to the constitutional challenge was rooted in concerns for the minor’s own safety.
The judge also voiced sharp criticism of the delayed disclosure of evidence in the case, noting that nearly a year has passed since the teen was first taken into remand, yet his legal team still has not been formally informed of the full nature of the evidence against their client. Justice Weekes called this delay “unacceptable”, and confirmed that no trial date has yet been set for the teenager.
Beyond the immediate bail application, the 16-year-old has launched a formal constitutional challenge against the legislation, naming the Attorney General of Barbados as the sole defendant. In his statement of claim, he alleges that the State has violated his right to personal liberty enshrined in Section 13 of the Barbados Constitution’s Bill of Rights. He notes that he has provided a formal alibi for the allegations against him, but still remained behind bars after five bail attempts solely due to the new law’s undefined requirement.
The claim argues that the lack of a clear definition for “exceptional circumstances” creates what it terms an effective “glass barrier” to bail for anyone charged with a firearms offense. The claimant’s legal team stresses that any denial of bail is not the fault of sitting judges, who have made good-faith efforts to interpret both the letter and spirit of the new law, but that the undefined prerequisite itself violates Sections 13(2) and 13(3) of the national constitution.
In his argument to the court, Hanuman pointed to alternative approaches used in other jurisdictions to address public safety concerns around bail for serious offenses. Many regions, he noted, have implemented electronic ankle monitoring to track the movements of accused persons granted bail, a system that was successfully deployed in Barbados itself to manage international visitors during the COVID-19 pandemic. The teen’s legal team is asking the court to formally rule that the undefined “exceptional circumstances” requirement in the 2024 Bail Act violates Section 13 of the constitution, and to award vindicatory damages for the violation of his fundamental rights.
Section 13 of the Barbados Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which forms part of the country’s supreme law, enshrines core protections for anyone arrested or detained. The clause requires that detained people must be promptly informed of the reason for their detention in a language they can understand, must be granted immediate access to a private consultation with a legal representative of their choice at their own expense, and must be allowed reasonable opportunity to communicate with a parent or guardian if they are under the age of 16. It also mandates that anyone detained on suspicion of a criminal offense who is not released must be brought before a court as quickly as is reasonably practical, and that if a trial does not proceed within a reasonable timeframe, the accused must be released either unconditionally or on reasonable bail conditions that guarantee their appearance at a future trial, without prejudicing ongoing proceedings.
The case has been adjourned, with a new court date to be scheduled in the coming weeks. Lougheed continues to represent the Attorney General as the case proceeds.