“There is no suggestion by way of witness that she is in any way involved in the commission of this crime”, he added before submitting that his other client who is a dog handler had nothing to do with the suitcase since he hadn’t even touched it.
On February 2, Hughes said that two female members of a particular faith were leaving the country and after becoming suspicious Tennant told them that she wanted to conduct a search.
The lawyer said that the women told his client that they were the relatives of a member of law enforcement. Tennant he said told them to produce proof and when they failed to do she searched their person and their luggage but found nothing.
Immediately after, Hughes said that his client was reprimanded by her boss who told her that the women were relatives of a law enforcement officer and therefore should not have been searched.
She later received a letter from the supervisor and a copy of it was handed over to the court shortly after its contents were read. The names printed were not mentioned in Hughes’ submissions.
The letter was dated February 2 and signed by M Persaud, senior supervisor. It stated that the two women (name printed) who were travelling to JFK were related to a certain person (designation printed) which was made known. “Although this was made known to you, you still went ahead to searched their checked luggage… In future when matter of this nature comes up, you are to report it to me directly before searches are carried out and I will instruct what course of action should be taken”, the letter stated.
“…All I am asking is that you use your initiative in conducting your duties”, it added.
Hughes stated that a file on the matter was sent to the DPP and no charges were recommended but later it was redirected to her and she instructed the police to charge.
“I am distressed about the high handedness of this matter. This is a 22-year-old single woman. From the moment this is published their careers are ruined”, he stated.
The dog handler, he said depends on the animal and sometime last year he conducted a search on a relative of a member of law enforcement. No name was mentioned in court yesterday.
He said that on November 9, Smith gave a statement explaining why his dog sniffed a suitcase adding that the man has given 14 years of his life to the Force only to now be charged with conspiracy.
Police prosecutor Joel Ricknauth told the court that the applications made by the lawyers were credible and did not object to bail being granted.
At the end of the matter the magistrate transferred it to the Providence court but both lawyers objected to this saying that the present court was a strong court and being aware that it was burdened were prepared to wait on the next available date.
The magistrate granted the lawyers’ request and will hear the matter on June 29 when it is called again.
