By PAVEL BAILEY
Tribune Staff Reporter
pbailey@tribunemedia.net
A MOTHER was ordered to pay a $4,500 bail bond after the court found that her son had absconded before his armed robbery trial.
Branhilda Cooper, 60, along with Carmica Smith, were ordered to pay $4,500 each by Justice Jeanine Weech Gomez.
The pair had both signed to be sureties of Brandon Cooper’s bail in 2019 after he was accused of a charge of armed robbery in 2016.
Mrs Cooper had informed the court in September 2023 that she wished to be removed as a surety for her son as she would be unable to ensure his attendance in court. She elaborated that her son had relocated to Abaco for work.
Before this, Brandon Cooper had successfully applied for a bail variation in September 2022 to accommodate the move under the condition that he sign in at the local police station and did not interfere with any witnesses.
A warrant of arrest has since been issued for Brandon Cooper as he failed to appear for his court date.
Mrs Cooper argued that she should not have to forfeit her money for the bail breach, as since she signed for her son’s bail, she had encountered “grave financial hardship” and is unable to meet basic expenses. She claimed that her house had been repossessed and that, in addition to working as an office clerk, she had to take jobs as a babysitter to supplement her family’s needs. She further stated it was a challenge to maintain their current apartment.
Mrs Cooper stated that her husband is a self-employed electrician without a steady income.
She also stated that she only first signed on to her son’s bail because she was confident in his attendance in court and had tried to discharge herself as suretor after she could no longer ensure his attendance on August 16, 2023. On this same date Brandon failed to appear in court.
Mrs Cooper implored the mercy of the court to be spared from paying bail bond.
Meanwhile Ms Smith submitted that she did not know either Mrs Cooper or Brandon Cooper. Ms Smith claimed that she was asked to sign the bail by a coworker, who was the girlfriend of the defendant.
Ms Smith said that she was oblivious to the serious obligation she had taken by signing the bail bond.
Justice Gomez acknowledged the financial hardship of Mrs Cooper and stated that Ms Smith had taken a “hands-off approach” to bail. However, she underscored that the applicants had signed the bail bond and were therefore liable to pay it since the defendant failed to attend court.
The pair has 45 days from the court’s ruling to pay their debt or return to court on June 26 with an offer of a payment plan.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.