Accused man released from ‘tag’ over water sports job

| 26/03/2012

(CNS): A man facing charges for possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammunition has had his electronic tag removed in order to allow him to continue in his job working on tour boats that go out to Stingray City as he awaits his trial later this year. John Furniss, who made the application to the court on Friday on behalf of his client, Frederick Booth, pointed out that the tags are not waterproof below a certain depth and susceptible to salt water spray. The lawyer told the court that if it was not removed, the young defendant would not be able to work. Although the crown objected to the removal, the judge ordered that the device be removed.

The prosecution opposed the removal because the defendant was on bail only because of the tag and he faced “extremely serious” charges, with evidence linking him to a revolver. The crown counsel told the court that Booth was only engaged in casual work and it was not a sufficient reason to vary the bail conditions.

However, the judge said, given that the defendant's employment was in jeopardy, he agreed with Furniss that the monitor should be removed but he warned Booth that he had to continue to obey the curfew, otherwise he would be back before the courts.

Booth, alongside Charles Ebanks, is facing charges regarding a gun recovered by police last March in the vicinity of Lawrence Boulevard and the LI Nightclub. The crown claims it has DNA evidence linking Booth to the weapon.

The idea of tagging defendants who are on bail awaiting trial is to enable law enforcement to keep an eye on suspects while cutting down on costs to the public purse, as well as helping those accused but not found guilty of any crime to remain in work and finance themselves. In most cases, however, bail conditions of suspects who are tagged usually ensure that curfews are lifted during the hours of work to allow defendants to keep their jobs.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Crime

Comments (14)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Just spray paint it Gold and put some fake bling bling on it Playa!!

  2. Anonymous says:

    How about this – the tag gets removed when he arrives at work and he is under supervision by management whilst he is at work, then when he leaves it is put back on. If something happens i.e. he disappears/ he misses curfew etc. then the responsibilty falls on the company that he works at.

    This way he gets to keep his job, there is the dive company as the surity of the bail and the dive company will be extra vigilent in making sure they keep an eye on him and replace his tag at the end of each day.

  3. Anonymous says:

    He should be happy to not be in jail! My understanding of the tags is that they are placed on those who would otherwise be incarcerated, so if the tag is off should he not be remanded again for the GUN crime he is accused of? He’s lucky to have been out of prison in the first place.

  4. Anonymous says:

    more wonderland stuff

  5. Anonymous says:

    I hope that the prosecutors will appeal this.There is nothing in the report that suggests that the safety of the public was given adequate consideration. What actual evidence was that this persons job required him to dive below the depth limits of the device? What acctual evidence was there that "salt spray" might damage the device?  What actual evidence was there that the if necessary the device could not be removed only during the times that the accused was required to work outside the limits of the device?

    • Anonymous says:

      you're forgetting that the unit scares the customers.  It's bad for business.

  6. Anonymous says:

    The year is 2012, and 3M makes a waterproof and shockproof electronic monitoring system.  Wouldn't the ordering of some of those be preferable for society than blindly releasing people that are accused of serious charges?   

  7. anonymous says:

    Did anyone bother to ask the department who actually manages this program??  They could have told you that the units ARE waterproof and in no way suceptible to "salt water spray" do you think these guys bathe or shower with them on if they are not waterproof??  XXXXX

    • Anonymous says:

      The device is not waterproof below a certain depth. There is a big difference between the water pressure in your bathtub and the water pressure just a few meters below the surface of the sea.

      • Anonymous says:

        THe SRC/Sandbar is 3 to 4 feet deep. And, not all crew members get in the water. XXXXX

      • Anonymous says:

        The report says that the guy works part time on a tour boat NOT that he is a dive master or is otherwise required by his work to be several meters under the water.

      • Omar the Tent Maker says:

        The water pressure increases one atmosphere for every 33 feet you go down…that would be 10 Meters for you..not a "few"…

        • Anonymous says:

          There is absolutely no increase in water pressure until you reach 10 meters? The pressure then stays exactly the same until you reach 20 meters, then 30 meters and so forth and so on? Also, there is no difference between bathtub water and sea water in terms of corrosion, right?

          • anonymous says:

            stick to what you know…the fact is these units are designed to be able to withstand the effects of water, beit salt or fresh…