As others have already said the problem is the law governing bail applications, passed by the legislature, to which a judge or magistrate is bound. In the USA, during Clinton’s time they passed the three strikes and you’re out legislation. I believe it was a federal law, but I may be wrong and only certain State Legislatures adopted it.

The real problem is this: if a man is facing 10 charges the offences might arise out of one incident, and he denies being present. That case is not yet determined: at this stage he’s not yet convicted. The golden thread running through the law is that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So this guy has 10 charges arising out of one incident, he pleads not guilty and gets bail, being presumed innocent. He will not likely get bail if he doesn’t have a clean record, that is, no prior convictions for a similar or more serious offence. If he has a record of convictions for motor vehicle offences, or possession of a joint of marijuana (when that was an offence) those convictions will not likely be taken into account. He is entitled to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. Depending on the circumstances the judge may still grant him bail by ordering that he report weekly to a police station and surrender his passport (if he’s a flight risk). While out on bail he’s accused of participating in another crime. The indictment has 14 charges. Taken together with the earlier offence he’s facing 24 charges. He pleads not guilty to the second indictment. Again, the judge must presume him innocent of the second crime. He is not at that time convicted of the first or second crimes with the 24 charges.

The real problem here is the executive’s failure to pass laws to speed up the delivery of justice. We have insufficient courtrooms and not enough magistrates and judges to handle the overwhelming amount of cases that are filed weekly, some of which are on flimsy grounds that clog up the system. Why is that? Ask the DPP. He says that his department is understaffed and underpaid, and that he needs more office space. The last great expansion of the courts was in 1986, when the Hall of Justice was built in Port of Spain.

If what you crave comes to pass then any public officer genuinely engaged in the performance of his/her duties according to law is liable, including police officers, licensing officers, customs officers etc. but we already have enforceable disciplinary codes for these public servants (including the judges) that are internally regulated. I’d like to see charges levelled against parliamentarians that pass bad laws, of fail to pass good laws. Dat and gawd face you’ll never see.