Hugh Erickson. Photo:facebook

Leon King (braids) and Gerry Freeman are facing charges of money laundering and possession of cocaine. Photo: VINO/File

Also charged with money laundering and possession of cocaine are Jomo Jack (left) and James John (right). Photo: VINO/File

The five men accused in the matter include James Telesforde John, a 62-year-old captain from Tortola, who is facing charges of alleged unlawful importation of cocaine (114 kg); possession of the proceeds of criminal conduct ($391,780); possession of the proceeds of criminal conduct ($178,060); possession of proceeds of criminal conduct ($81,585); and unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to supply. Jomo Jack and Leon King, were jointly charged with possession of the proceeds of criminal conduct ($178,060), with Hugh Erickson and Gerry Freeman also facing a joint charge of possession of proceeds of criminal conduct ($37,040.25).

Erickson and Freeman were previously represented by attorney at law Anthea Smith while King and Jack were represented by Ruthilia Maximea. John was being represented by attorney Stephen Daniels.

During his application for bail for Erickson, attorney Hubert Mckenzie noted that there were numerous other ways to ensure his client’s attendance at court proceedings. He also expressed that the defendant was well known.

“The fact that he may have access to boats is not a matter that the court should hold against him,” McKenzie said while noting that in his estimation, at least 90% of the population has access to boats in the Territory and this had not prevented others from turning up for trial when given their pre-trial liberty. The attorney further argued that it was his belief, that escape from prison in this Territory is a far more prevalent phenomenon than persons absconding from bail. 

Mr Mckenzie further proposed that the accused has persons who are prepared to stand as surety and it was the defendant’s intention to stay to answer the four complaints against him.

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Wayne Rajbansie, in his rebuttal said the prosecution offered objection “robustly” to the granting of bail to the defendant.

He argued that there was a fundamental flaw in the argument of the defence whereby the court was being asked to consider evidence not yet placed before it. “These are four very serious charges against the defendant,” said the DPP.

Mr Rajbansie noted that the defendant was not charged alone in any singular count; there were three counts with four others in addition to one count with one other person.

He further noted that the defendant had two previous applications for bail refused and felt that some changes in the circumstances of the defendant should be the only legitimate reason for an application for bail. The DPP noted that none were alluded to by the Defence Counsel.

“To grant one bail and leave the others would lead to an aberration of the judicial process,” DPP Rajbansie said. He further described this as an anomaly while adding that there was no basis or the court to exercise its discretion in this regard.

In closing, Mr Rajbansie said the very serious charges before the defendant attract significant penalties in law. He noted too, that if this application was refused outside of this season, there was no reason to grant it within this season in apparent reference to Mr McKenzie’s earlier appeal that the liberty be granted in the context of goodwill for the season of Christmas.

Mr McKenzie in reply, stated that he was not asking for a severance of the matter and noted that in trials where persons were jointly charged, evidence, as a matter of law has to be assessed separately before a verdict can be returned.

The defence attorney further argued that he was making reference to the cogency of the material that existed which will then be turned into evidence before the court.

He further noted that previous counsel for the defendant, according to his notes, said a renewal for a bail application could be done once full disclosure had actually been made. He also argued that it would not be an anomaly for the defendant to be granted bail as it had happened in the past with others and will continue to happen in future. This line of argument, he contended, was tantamount to saying that you can’t convict one defendant without convicting the others. The matter of the prevalence of the issue was not relevant since the presumption of the innocence of the defendant precludes this.

In coming to her decision, Magistrate Richards noted that the defence had not made mention of the introduction of new circumstances in making the new application for bail and this was of particular concern to her.

It is alleged that on August 10, 2012, in Road Town, in the vicinity of the Government Administration Complex, officers of the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force observed and arrested the five men who were suspected to have drugs in their possession.

Upon their arrest, the court was informed, officers recovered over $688,000 in cash and around 114 kilos of cocaine, which had an estimated street value of $11.4 million.