The Tribune

By NICO SCAVELLA

Tribune Staff Reporter

nscavella@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has given six government agencies two weeks to turn over “any and all” documents pertaining to controversial Crown witness Barbara Hanna and her cleaning company to counsel involved in former PLP Senator Frank Smith’s bribery and extortion trial.

Justice Gregory Hilton, in a court order dated April 23, ordered the various entities to serve both the Crown and Smith’s legal team with documents concerning the “financial affairs” of Mrs Hanna “in her personal name or any trade name or business name” including but not limited to her company Magic Touch.

Justice Hilton said the Public Hospitals Authority; the commissioner of police; the controller of inland revenue; the secretary of revenue; the financial secretary; and the National Insurance Board have until May 7 to comply with the order.

Damian Gomez, QC, one of Smith’s attorneys, told The Tribune yesterday that his legal team petitioned the Supreme Court for the court order due to their dissatisfaction with the Crown’s disclosure of its purported evidence against their client to date.

“We have heard certain testimony from the Crown’s main witness, Mrs Barbara Hanna, and information we are seeking from the authorities, is information relating to that testimony,” Mr Gomez told The Tribune.

According to the court order, Justice Hilton in particular ordered the production and consequent surrender of the copies of “any and all written communications” between the board of the PHA and the minister of health between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017 relating to the cleaning of the Critical Care Block of Princess Margaret Hospital.

Justice Hilton also ordered the production and consequent surrender of an “opinion” of the Attorney General’s Office rendered to the board of the PHA, and published to the minister of health, which said the board was advised that there was “no corruption” in the grant of the contract to Mrs Hanna in 2016 for the cleaning of the CCB.

The aforementioned entities are further ordered to produce copies of “all vouchers, cancelled cheques or other documentary evidence” of payments from the PHA to Mrs Hanna and/or Magic Touch between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017.

They are also ordered to produce copies of “any and all resolutions” of the PHA board between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 concerning its approval of Magic Touch as the successful bidder for “any and all” contracts to clean the CCB.

Justice Hilton further ordered for the production of a copy of all correspondences from the PHA to Mrs Hanna advising her that her company, Magic Touch, had succeeded in winning any bids concerning the cleaning of the CCB. The judge also ordered the production of a copy of the register of those persons who attended the opening of the bids for the CCB to PMH in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

He also ordered the production of a copy of the contract between the PHA and Mrs Hanna and/or Magic touch dated October 17.

The aforementioned entities are also ordered to turn over the value added tax returns for the period January 2015 to December 2017 together with “corresponding documentation” evidencing the payments of VAT payable under the Value Added Tax Act 2014 from the alleged customers of Mrs Hanna and/or Magic Touch.

They are further ordered to turn over all business licence documents for the period December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2017 including “any sworn statements” made by Mrs Hanna concerning her business gross earnings from Magic Touch, and also any document evidencing an agreement by Mrs Hanna to pay outstanding taxes and/or licence fees between herself and the government of the Bahamas.

Justice Hilton also ordered that any and all documents associated with or relating to the payment of NIB contributions for Mrs Hanna’s and/or Magic Touch’s employees, including but not limited to Mrs Hanna sworn statements, any document evidencing an agreement by Mrs Hanna to pay outstanding NIB contributions to her or Magic Touch’s employees between January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017.

In February, Chief Magistrate Joyann Ferguson-Pratt reprimanded Crown prosecutors for conducting a “piecemeal type of disclosure” during Smith’s trial, while simultaneously rejecting a request by the defence to have the trial thrown out over the Crown’s late bid to introduce key evidence against the accused.

At the time, lead Crown attorney Edward Jenkins, QC, said the prosecution needed more time to obtain banking information of “critical importance” to its case against Smith. Mr Jenkins, an English attorney, said subsequent to his formal engagement in the matter, he requested certain information from various banking institutions pertaining to Mrs Hanna via court order.

When questioned by the chief magistrate if based on the Crown’s submissions the proceedings were effectively halted, Mr Jenkins suggested as much by saying the Crown needs to resolve the issue concerning the bank evidence as it goes to the “heart of the case.” He also said it was crucial for the “just resolution” of the trial.

However, Smith’s lead attorney Keith Knight, QC, said consequent to Mr Jenkin’s request, the Crown’s case had “elevated” from shoddy to “sinister” and “outrageous,” and said some of the documents the Crown now intends to serve on the accused contained some of the same information Mr Gomez was seeking since the inception of Smith’s matter before the court.

During previous proceedings, Mr Knight attacked Mrs Hanna’s credibility, and foreshadowed a no-case submission based in part on the allegation that Mrs Hanna condemned her testimony.

The key moment during those proceedings came when Mrs Hanna, without prodding, claimed to give police documents about Pouland Limited, a lending company owned by Smith’s family, that the prosecution did not disclose during discovery.

At the time, the prosecution, after having inquired whether the documents were given to the police, reported that investigators said they were never in receipt of them.

Mr Knight argued at the time that if so, it meant Mrs Hanna’s credibility was destroyed. On the other hand, Mr Knight said if the documents were shown to police as Mrs Hanna claimed, its lack of disclosure puts the accused at a disadvantage.

Mr Knight further argued that the lack of disclosure may mean constitutional provisions on fairness may have been breached. The Jamaican attorney emphasised at the time that the prosecution––which he said includes police investigators––were obligated to turn over all documents, no matter their perceived benefit.

Smith is facing 15 criminal charges concerning his alleged solicitation of $65,000 in bribes from Mrs Hanna, who he is said to have assisted in getting a contract from the PHA while he served as chairman. He is currently out on $50,000 bail.

He was initially arraigned before the chief magistrate in July of last year charged with 13 counts of extortion and one count of attempted extortion and bribery.

Smith pleaded not guilty to all of the charges during his initial arraignment.