DEFENCE attorney Deborah Martin, who is representing businessman Patrick Powell — the man charged for his alleged failure to hand over his licensed firearm following a request by the police — on Wednesday indicated to the court that she was learning ‘definitively’ for the first time that Powell’s case file, which was at the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA), could not be found.

The attorney made the disclosure at the start of the trial in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court, after asking to see the original case file, while noting that it could contain documents, which could be of relevance to her client’s case.However, lead prosecutor Yanique Gardener Brown expressed surprise by Martin’s utterance, pointing out that 90 copies of items pertaining to the missing files and two statements indicating the source of the copies which had been disclosed to the attorney.It was first reported in the media last November that the file could not be found but Martin said that she was not aware then that the file was truly lost and that when copies of the documents were disclosed to her she was of the impression that they were presented based on what was in the public domain.Michael Dixon, director of audit and complaints at the FLA, who was testifying when Martin made the request, explained that there had been “some matters” pertaining to the original file.When asked to expound he told the court that he was informed at an FLA board meeting last October that the file could not be located after several requests were made for it to be presented.He further testified that an extensive search was done by the staff at the FLA’s head office in Kingston and at its two regional offices and up to then the file had still not surfaced.Martin then demanded to see the copy of the original file, noting that while she was presented with several copies of documents purporting to be a part of the original file, she was not entirely sure as she was never shown the original file and would now like to see a copy of the original file in its entirety to ensure that she was given all the documents that could be of relevance to her client’s case.The prosecutor, however, insisted that all the relevant documents had been submitted to her, except intelligence documents pertaining to the revocation of Powell’s gun licence.In the meanwhile, Dixon during his evidence-in-chief, said that following a request from the police on July 18, 2011 he had generated a firearm licensing report pertaining to Powell’s firearm and a statement which he had stamped and signed after verifying the content of the reports via cross reference from electronic and physical database.But during cross-examination by Martin he admitted that a replacement report of his statement and the firearm licensing report were resubmitted in January 2017 and that the only difference in relation to content was the status of Powell’s firearm which, unlike the first report, indicated that his licence had been revoked in November 2016.When asked if he had been aware of reports about data entry errors regarding Powell’s case, Dixon said he would not speculate about what was in the public domain.He was then asked if he was not aware of several reports made in the media by Acting Commissioner of Police Elan Powell about the discovery data entry errors concerning the investigation of Powell’s firearm.But Dixon in reply said, “I can’t recall,” and further added that he was clueless about the report that Martin was referring to.“Would it concern you that there could be data entry errors that could impact this case?” Martin then asked.“I have no such concern, based on the process that was followed,” he answered.Powell was arrested and charged for allegedly failing to hand over his licensed firearm to the police following the shooting death of Kingston College student Khajeel Mais in July 2011.The businessman was acquitted of murder last October.