Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on reddit
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

1 February, 2021, marks the second anniversary since the Chief Magistrate presented a ruling in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Frank Smith. 

Extracts from the Magistrate’s Ruling involved: 


“I am satisfied that it is reasonable to find that the call logs produced were likely manipulated to create the false impression that the accused was persistently calling (the virtual complainant) when in fact it was in reverse.” 


• “Dr. Sands, ACP Rolle and Mr. Dames ,In my view did not advance the case for the Prosecution. Each gave evidence, 

of what was said to them by (the virtual complainant) that she either never said in evidence neither provided to the police during her interview.” 

“It is strange that Mr. Dames in explaining” (his calls to the virtual compliant) …said that she “was desperate to 

make a complaint to the police; but yet (she) said that after she was called and went to the police, she did not have “the slightest idea” of what was going on, she was surprised until “they open up”. 

So it is that Dr. Sands and Mr. Dames were in contact with (the virtual complainant) before she attended the police station…” 

“Dr. Sands awarded the contract (for approximately $2,000,000) with the curious apprehension of it being criticized for “bias.” Unhappily, bias is not now the criticism of the Defence, but rather that the decision was a motivation for the virtual complainant to lie. It is unfortunate, in the circumstance that this report of the internal auditor (which had been mandated by the Board of PHA) has not been made available and the spectre of impropriety in the award by Dr. Sands remains unresolved. 

The government appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal and to the Privy Council. Each appeal court affirmed the ruling of the Magistrate. 


• There has not even been a mention of an investigation as to who “manipulated” the telephone logs. There is no doubt that the manipulation took place while the evidence was in the possession of the police and the manipulation took place in a case in which the Minister of National Security was inappropriately involved. 

There has been no consequence for the conduct of Minister Sands for having breached the rules of the PHA. 

Indeed, the Government continues to even refuse to exhibit the internal audit report which the PHA‘s Board had mandated 

• The Attorney General still refuses to disclose how much of the public’s money was spent. All of this from a 

Government which calls other people corrupt and claims to be transparent-matters which would be jokes if they were not so serious.