addition to Henry’s application for bail, his client Williams is not a flight risk and has nothing before the court that would cause it to deprive his client of bail.

During its rebuttal, the prosecution informed the court that both Williams and Smartt had received discharge letters from the force. However, Henry argued that it was an uncalled for move since both defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The police prosecutor, Quincy Lacon, told the magistrate that the prosecution maintained its objections.

Smartt’s attorney told the court that both defendants were charged as civilians and referred to the charges as erroneous.

There was an adjournment to enable the prosecution to contact their office on the fiat. The magistrate later inquired whether the DPP had advised on the case file and the prosecution responded with a request for a short date in relation to the fiat being done and presented to the court. The magistrate then stated that the fiat is supposed to be on file and since the prosecution was without one it was a violation of the legislation. This resulted in the matter being thrown out.

A statement earlier in the day from the police had said that detectives are in possession of evidence showing constable Smartt taking the suspects to the crime scene. After the robbery was committed, Smartt and Williams (both of whom were on motorcycles and in uniform) were seen escorting the suspects to an area known as Rasville. Both ranks were promptly arrested and questioned by investigators. Efforts are ongoing to arrest the principal offenders, the police said.

A file was prepared and sent to the Police Legal Advisor (PLA) Mandel Moore, who advised that, based on the facts, there is sufficient evidence to charge both accused jointly with the offence of ‘Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, to wit Robbery Under Arms, contrary to Section 34 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, Chapter 8:01.

The PLA also advised that Constable Smartt and Constable Williams be interdicted from duty.