Prosecution dismisses arguments by former Clarendon roads and works deputy

PROSECUTORS have dismissed as “quite disingenuous” and “a misrepresentation” arguments put forward by former deputy superintendent of roads and works at the Manchester Municipal Corporation Sanjay Elliott, who is seeking to have his conviction and sentence overturned after a parish court judge found him the “ringmaster” who led in the swindling of millions of dollars from that entity.

In a submission before an Appeal Court panel led by President Justice Patrick Brooks on Thursday, the Crown, in responding to the grounds of the appeal outlined Wednesday by attorney Norman Godfrey who is representing Elliott, said it stood by its assertions in the original trial that “a criminal enterprise” was being “operated” by Elliott and that his “amassed wealth was from his defrauding of the parish council”.

Elliott was, in 2020, sentenced to five years’ imprisonment at hard labour for being the “ringmaster” in the multimillion-dollar fraud after being found guilty on charges of conspiracy to defraud, obtaining money by false pretence, engaging in a transaction that involves criminal property, possession of criminal property, and an act of corruption by Senior Parish Court Judge Ann-Marie Grainger. His wife Tasha Gaye Goulbourne-Elliott got a non-custodial sentence and was fined $3 million, while his other co-accused, former secretary manager and acting CEO of the corporation, David Harris, was sentenced to 16 months in prison at hard labour, and former temporary works overseer Kendale Roberts was sentenced to 18 months at hard labour. Carpenter/gardener Dwayne Sibbles was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment at hard labour on the count of conspiracy to defraud.

The evidence against Elliott was that he contacted the four main witnesses asking them for their Taxpayer Registration Numbers (TRN) and asked their permission to make out cheques in their names for work purportedly done for the parish council. Those cheques were delivered to them directly or indirectly. They then encashed the cheques and gave the money to Elliott. According to the witnesses, they knew Elliott and considered him a friend and thought nothing suspicious of those activities, based on his job.

One witness, during the trial, said, “Although I was not doing any work I would get call from Sanjay to go to the parish council and collect cheques with my name on them and cash them at the Bank of Nova Scotia and give the money to Dwayne. At times he [Elliott] would give me $10,000 or $15,000 for myself.” Elliott and his three co-accused, the court held, had defrauded the council of $40 million, even though initial reports had referenced $400 million. They were charged on a 32-count indictment.

In the grounds of the appeal, Elliott’s attorney argued, among other things, that the verdict is “unreasonable” and that the learned trial judge “erred in law” when she rejected the no-case submission for his client. Furthermore, he contended that the judge also erred in law when she held that the interference with the witnesses by the police did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. In insisting that his client was “deprived of a fair trial”, Godfrey contended that the court should “frown upon” the conduct of the investigating office who he said continued to interrogate a witness after the trial had started and “used underhand methods” to get him to ‘give evidence contrary’ to the two statements he had previously provided the prosecution with.

On Thursday, prosecutors, in responding to arguments by Godfrey regarding a cheque for $300,000 that Elliott was indicted for that was not among the exhibits, pointed out that a payment voucher from the council had been entered into evidence which would substantiate that claim.

“This evidence is unchallenged. When a cheque is prepared the payment information is captured on a payment voucher. There is a printout of the bank statement for one of the parish council’s account. Therein lies not just the cheque number but the date [the witness] said she went to the bank and the amount of $300,000. So the learned trial judge had before her not just the oral testimony but documentary evidence substantiating a transaction,” the prosecutor said.

Turning to Godfrey’s insistence that the police had interfered with witnesses, prosecutors held that “there was no fault, error, or misdirection in the learned judges finding that there was no prosecutorial misconduct” and that she applied the law in arriving at her decisions.

The panel, in adjourning the matter on Thursday afternoon, said “based on the amount of material” the court has to “look at”, it will reserve its judgement and inform the parties through the registrar when the court has arrived at a decision.