Man arrested twice in three nights

When Thorr Nickleson was arrested twice in three nights, his detention in custody by police was queried by both Crown and defence, but Magistrate Valdis Foldats said he was following procedures set down in the Alternative Sentencing Law. 

Nickleson, 28, was arrested by police the evening of Wednesday, 21 December, and taken to court on Thursday, 22 December, for being in breach of his curfew. 

Released on Friday afternoon by the magistrate, Nickleson was arrested on Friday night, again for breach of curfew. This time, because of the Christmas holidays, there was no court sitting until Wednesday, 28 December, and Nickleson was held in custody until police brought him to court that day. 

At issue was the fact his curfew was not a condition of bail – it was part of a sentence imposed in October under the Alternative Sentencing Law, which came into effect in May. 

Nickleson’s curfew, imposed by former Chief Magistrate Margaret Ramsay-Hale, was from 8pm to 6am. 

During his first appearance before Magistrate Foldats, he agreed he had been observed walking on Diaz Avenue in George Town at 10.35pm. He said he had fallen asleep at a friend’s house after work and was on his way home to Prospect when police saw him. 

Crown Counsel Dennis Brady said the arresting officers had received information about the curfew from their supervisor. There was no suggestion of any criminal conduct on Nickleson’s part. 

The magistrate questioned whether Nickleson shouldn’t be released. Mr. Brady agreed to research the matter and it was put over until the next day, with Nickleson kept in custody. 

On Friday, the magistrate pointed to procedures set out in the Alternative Sentencing Law for bringing a person to court when there is an alleged breach of any condition. Those procedures involve either a summons or, if the information is in writing and on oath, a warrant.  

The magistrate said he did not have any documents in front of him that satisfied the procedures. He therefore released Nickleson from custody. 

On 28 December, Nickleson appeared in front of Magistrate Foldats again. Crown Counsel Alliyah McCarthy told the court he had been observed by police on patrol in West Bay at 8.15pm on Friday, 23 December. The officers spoke to him and he said he didn’t have a phone to check the time. He was then arrested. 

The magistrate again pointed to the procedures set down in the law. 

Ms McCarthy said the police officer’s statement was in writing, but the magistrate noted it was not on oath.  

During an adjournment, Ms McCarthy attempted to find the officer so that he could come to court and make his statement on oath, but when court resumed she advised that he was off duty that day and could not be contacted.  

She then pointed out Nickleson was already in custody. 

“But why is he in custody?” the magistrate asked. 

Ms McCarthy said there were new charges pending.  

The magistrate said he did not have anything in front of him. 

The matter was put over again, at which time Attorney John Furniss appeared for Nickleson and Mr. Brady returned for the Crown. 

Mr. Furniss asked for bail, but Mr. Brady asked to be heard. He said Nickleson on the Friday night had been found further from home than on the previous night.  

“I urge you to find that is the clearest demonstration of a person making a mockery of a sentence made for his own advantage and giving him a shot at rehabilitation,” he said. 

Mr. Brady asked the court to find the arresting officers were not acting in bad faith, since they had received their information from their supervisor.  

The magistrate said he was not deciding that issue, he was hearing Mr. Furniss’ application for bail on the new charges received that afternoon. They included disorderly conduct at the police station.  

In granting bail, he imposed conditions similar to those of Nickleson’s previous sentence, including the curfew. Emphasising the new situation, he advised, “If you breach your curfew by one minute, police can arrest you” and there would be no technical basis to complain. 

“If it were other than a new procedure under the Alternative Sentencing Law, things would be different,” he told Nickleson. “There was an issue with how you were brought to court, but you were released knowing you were at risk. I haven’t decided yet whether you breached your curfew order.” 

He referred to the purpose of the Alternative Sentencing Law: “You know the Chief Magistrate was hoping you would start rehabilitation. The protection of society is best met by the rehabilitation of the offender.” 

The new charges were set for mention again on Tuesday, 17 January.