Former policeman convicted of soliciting bribe loses appeal

Former police constable Austin Cunningham, who was convicted in the St James Parish Court in October 2017 for corruptly soliciting $100,000 for the release of a motor vehicle, has lost his appeal against his conviction.

Cunningham was convicted of breaching the Corruption Prevention Act and was given a suspended sentence.

The parish court judge imposed a sentence of four month's imprisonment but suspended the sentence for 12 months.

In dismissing the appeal last week Friday, the court ruled that the suspended sentence is reckoned to have commenced on September 25, 2017, the date it was originally imposed.

The evidence was that on August 21, 2010, the complainant was driving a motor vehicle in Montego Bay when he was stopped by the police.

Cunningham asked him for the documents for the car and he explained that he did not have a driver's licence and that the car was registered in his cousin's name.

Evidence was given that Cunningham then remarked that the vehicle would have to be bought back for $100,000.

The complainant said at the appellant's request, he gave him his telephone number and on his way home, he received a telephone call.

The complainant subsequently made a report to the police.

The parish court judge ruled that the contents of the conversation were inadmissible.

The car was taken away on a wrecker and subsequent phone calls and directives were given to hand over the money to a man at a pharmacy who told the police that Cunningham had asked him to collect money from a man.

The man collected $35,000 from the complainant but returned it immediately.

Cunningham had given an unworn statement denying the allegations.

He filed several grounds of appeal contending that the parish judge erred in her findings.

Attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman argued on appeal that the evidence of what transpired at the pharmacy, and in particular, the conduct of the man in accepting money and then returning it, was inadmissible since it was both irrelevant and inadmissible hearsay evidence.

Wildman submitted that it could not be used as a basis for the judge to conclude that the appellant “was part of a criminal enterprise” in breach of the Act.

He said further that the man at the pharmacy was not called as a witness for the prosecution.

Crown Counsel Ashtelle Steele and Jodi-Ann Edwards had argued that although the judge had admitted the statements given by the man at the pharmacy, she gave no weight to them in coming to her conclusion.

The court comprising Justice Frank Williams, Justice David Fraser and Justice Kissock Laing agreed with Wildman that the statement in relation to the man at the pharmacy was in admissible.

However, the court ruled that “the essential element of the offence for which the appellant was found guilty was that he “solicited” money.

There is no requirement of the offence that the money must be actually received.

Reference was made by the court to the fact that the appellant's failure to record the seizure of the car in breach of police procedure was also evidence which was capable of supporting the accounts of two of the prosecution witnesses.

The court said it was its opinion that even without a finding that someone had accepted money at the pharmacy, the Crown's case was a strong one and would still result in a finding of guilt.

- Barbara Gayle

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.