Act 1992 giving courts permission to freeze the assets of suspected drug dealers.

Health and Social Services Minister the Hon. Quinton Edness said the Act allows properties allegedly purchased through ill-gotten gains to be seized by the Court after they are arrested.

If the alleged dealer is convicted of drug crimes, the courts will then confiscate the restrained assets.

The proposed change, which was recommended in the National Strategy, comes from the Attorney General's Chambers which noticed the gap in the law.

Mr. Edness said the Act's main purpose was to give the court the ability to freeze or restrain assets or property and to confiscate property in the event the person is found guilty of drug trafficking.

"The Act as it is does not make clear the court can restrain property at the time of arrest,'' he said.

He added that the time between the arrest and the conviction of the suspected person could range from anywhere between six months to two years. That space of time, he said, could allow the alleged traffickers to dispose the property.

Shadow Health and Social Services Minister Mr. Nelson Bascome said the amendment concerned the Progressive Labour Party on constitutional grounds.

He argued that legislation, such as this, which affects individuals civil liberties should not be "rammed'' through the House.

He said not only did the amendment seem to say a person was guilty before being proven innocent, but it also seems to be adding only the punitive recommendations of the National Drug Strategy.

"We continue to stay along the lines of punishment when dealing with recommendations of the strategy,'' he said. "We should be looking at pillars such as treatment and rehabilitation.'' Mr. Bascome said the Bill also includes grey areas. He said it failed to mention what will happen to the family if the assets of its main bread winner are seized.

He also asked whether the seized assets will go to those "stricken communities'' which are in need of it or sit in the consolidated fund and wait until Government programmes are started.

Mr. Stuart Hayward (Ind) expressed concern about the fact that assets will be restrained before a suspected drug trafficker is charged.

Mr. Hayward asked what steps were being taken to protect someone from the stigma of being accused of being involved in drug trafficking or to repair the damage that will be done to their reputation. He said the Bill also seemed to leave itself open to abuses.

He also asked Mr. Edness to spell out the procedure which will be followed for someone to have their property restrained before they are charged or convicted.

Mr. Stanley Morton (PLP) said part of the Bill runs contrary to a person's Constitutional right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

He argued that the Minister could not have it both ways. "Either change the law or change the Constitution in regard to individual rights,'' he said.

Mr. Morton also asked how the Bill affects lawyers who may be representing accused drug traffickers and in charge of the client's assets.

Mr. Harry Soares (UBP) said the Bill is part of Government's attempt to fight drug abuse through interdiction.

"Seizing assets has to be a clear message to drug dealers that they are not going to gain financially if they are caught. Today's a day to send a message that no one in our community will gain by dealing in drugs.'' Deputy Opposition Leader Mr. Walter Roberts said the party was willing to do everything "legally and Constitutionally possible'' to get rid of the drug scourge.

But the PLP was concerned that anybody could maliciously name someone as a drug trafficker.

Delegated Affairs Minister the Hon. Sir John Sharpe said as law makers who agreed that something must be done about drug trafficking and its damaging effects on Bermuda, they should pass the Bill.

Opposition Leader Mr. Frederick Wade expressed concern about the suspicion aspect of the Bill.

He said at the very least the person should be charged before his or her property is restrained.

"No one is more concerned about drugs than we in the PLP,'' he said. "We are faced with the drug problem outside of doorsteps every day so we know what it means. But there must be a line for which authorities should have sufficient evidence to make a charge.'' "This,'' he said referring to the Bill, "comes down to suspicion and judges have said time after time said that suspicion is not enough.'' Mr. Stanley Lowe (PLP) said: "If we're going to seize a person's assets, we must make some provision so at least that person can make a defence''.

Mrs. Lois Browne Evans (PLP) said "this Bill is not going to help the drug situation one iota''.

"In fact,'' she said, "only two cases have been able to come to court and without any great success (under the Drug Trafficking Suppression Act).

"I can never agree with such loose legislation like this which has such penalties. Judges are known to lose their abilities, or gain their abilities, to be biased when it comes to drugs. And I know that many people do not realise drug abuse is a sickness and those with it need help.'' Mrs. Browne Evans said something should be done to tighten up who will be allowed to bring "reasonable suspicion'' to the court so that it can be satisfied.

"We've got some busybodies around here, vigilantes, and people who are taking back their neighbourhoods,'' she said.

Mr. Edness said the 1988 and the amendment already had the safeguards to prevent someone from becoming the victim of a malicious person who may accuse them of drug trafficking.

"First of all Police will have to have sufficient evidence to take to the Attorney General's office,'' he said. "The Attorney General has to be satisfied with Police claim that this person is involved in drug trafficking before he takes this course.'' Mr. Edness also noted that the amendment clearly states the person's property will only be restrained if the court is satisfied.

"There must be reasonable evidence that the person is involved in drug trafficking,'' he said. "It is true that if everybody hasn't done their job, that some accident can happen. But if the judge errs or if a person's property is wrongfully restrained, there is an appeal court where that person could go.'' Mr. Edness said in addition to this, a person who is a victim of a malicious person could take recourse against that person by suing them.

He stressed that the Bill fills a gap in the Act.

"To my knowledge, there have been no restraints or seizures under the original Act,'' he said. "This is the problem. If we don't have the ability to restrain property, than that property disappears.'' Mr. Edness said the interim National Drug Authority steering committee is working on a Drug Strategy report recommendation that Government adopt a policy where the property confiscated is used to help in the fight against drug abuse.

Both the Misuse of Drugs Act and Fire Arms Act put the assumption of guilt on a person until he or she could prove otherwise. "But the protection to safeguard that individual's rights is also there,'' he said.

He said if a person's assets are restrained and it "legitimately'' affects the family, that person's lawyer has the right to go to the judge and cause a variance in the restraint order to look after that family.

Mr. Edness said the assets of a suspected drug trafficker can also be seized if they are in the care of his or her lawyer.

Deputy Premier the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto , who called the bill "a minor tidying up of the Act'' which she put through in 1988, said it will go some way toward the heart of Bermuda's drug problem.

"We have got to get down to get a handle on the monies that are turning over in this illegal, devastating industry,'' she said. "I am surprised I hear any murmur of dissent coming from the Opposition benches.'' The Hon. Quinton Edness Mr. Nelson Bascome.