DOUGLAS LEYS, solicitor general, is contending that the six anti-crime bills now being considered by a joint select committee of Parliament are not in breach of constitutional provisions.

But several attorneys, including head of the Farquharson Institute of Jamaica, Frank Phipps, QC, are insisting that the provisions would deprive Jamaicans of their right to freedom.

In a presentation to the committee yesterday, the solicitor general said the proposed legislation dealing with the controversial issue of the 60-day detention period before a charge for a serious crime was made did not breach the Constitution.

"There seems to be a misguided notion that there is a constitutional right to bail," he said, adding that there was a constitutional right to bail after a "reasonable time".

Leys explained that once a person was arrested, the Constitution prescribed that he shall be brought "without delay" before a court. He said when the accused appears before the court a trial should proceed "within a reasonable time".

Reasonable time

Leys argued that in the absence of a trial "within a reasonable time," the constitutional right to bail was triggered and the judge would then prescribe the conditions upon which the person must be released.

"The issue, as far as I am concerned, should be what is a reasonable time? Is it 60, or is it 30 days? Because this is the heart and crux of the constitutional provision - trial and a reasonable time," he said.

Rejecting the argument, Phipps quoted from Section 15 of the Constitution to support his position.

He said the Constitution stipulates that a person who was detained upon reasonable suspicion of committing a criminal offence and was not released "shall be brought before the court without delay".

According to him, the purpose for appearing before a court is to exercise the right to liberty.

"Any Parliament that denies the court the right to decide on the person's liberty at that stage would be going very far in the wrong direction."