A Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) corporal and his sibling — who were on Thursday freed by a Parish Court judge after no evidence could be found that they were party to a scheme in which they purchased a motor car which was advertised as part of a “migration deal” — are now suing the cop who built the case against them charging that he was “malicious”.

The soldier, Fabian Mills, who purchased the vehicle which was being sold for $850,000 for his younger sibling, Kellie-Ann, after seeing it advertised on several social media platforms in May this year, was jolted when two days after the transfer was completed, police tracked the vehicle to their home and advised them that it had been stolen.

“The transfer was completed on May 17 through the tax office and the police came and seized it on the 19th of May,” attorney for the duo, Alexander Shaw, told the
Jamaica Observer on Thursday following the court ruling in the St Catherine Parish Court.

According to Shaw, Mills gave a statement to the police telling them how he came by the vehicle. He said, following further investigation, the seller Warren Hanson was arrested and pleaded guilty to selling a rented vehicle. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in July this year. Shaw said Mills, who faithfully attended those hearings expecting to get his money back, was told by the police that he was okay and that the matter was finished.

However, in September this year, while aboard an aircraft at Norman Manley International Airport destined for the United States to join his spouse to celebrate their anniversary, Mills was unceremoniously removed from the flight and grilled. The corporal and his sibling, a business operator, were both charged for receiving stolen property and conspiracy to receive stolen property at common law. Mills was locked up for eight days at Greater Portmore Police Station in St Catherine before he was granted bail by the court. His sister, however, was granted station bail and escaped being incarcerated.

When the matter was called up Thursday in St Catherine Parish Court for a third hearing, sitting judge Justice Yvette Wentworth-Miller discharged the two after the prosecution said it could not prove that Mills had knowledge that the vehicle was stolen or that he even conspired.

“Receiving stolen property means you have to know the property is stolen so they couldn’t prove that and, based on the very fact of how he came to know about this vehicle, which was through an advertisement, and how he went through the normal process of paying for it and going through the tax office to get it transferred, there was no way he could have known the vehicle was stolen,” their attorney told the Observer.

According to the attorney, he had argued from the bail application that “the Crown could not mount a successful prosecution and the officer was just being malicious in proffering a charge against Mr Mills and his sister”, who did not know the seller before the transaction.

Shaw told the Observer that the errant cop has been warned that the siblings would be bringing an action against him for false imprisonment for Mills and malicious prosecution for both defendants against him.

“I made mention each time appearing before the court that the fact that the person who stole the vehicle pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to two years the matter was properly disposed of and so resurrection of the matter was malicious. When they went to the tax office the chassis number was not blocked. Ordinarily, when a vehicle is stolen and you want to interact with the vehicle any at all, whether through the Stamp Office or the motor vehicle examination depot, if your chassis number is blocked you cannot renew the fitness or license and register the vehicle, and so there was no red light, nothing to indicate to them that the vehicle was stolen, and so for the officer to bring back the case, it was malicious,” the attorney contended.

Shaw, in lamenting the fact that his clients’ lives were “nearly wrecked because of an innocent purchase”, said Mills “did not get a chance to enjoy his vacation or his anniversary” and is “not entitled to a vacation any time soon”.

“He was not even housed at the JDF, which is conventional for officers who are charged with a criminal offence. He was housed at Greater Portmore [Police Station] with all the criminals. He was exposed to that and, prior to the matter going to court, his family information, his name, his photograph, was publicised by bloggers. His character was tarnished because of this. He could have been added to the initial prosecution with Hanson because it was one event — motor vehicle stolen, motor vehicle sold — but he was never charged, which shows ineptitude, if not malice,” the attorney said. According to Shaw, his client had cooperated fully and did not try to evade the police all the while being “deeply concerned and distressed about his tenure with the JDF”.

The soldier’s sibling, speaking to the Observer on Thursday, said the ordeal had been traumatising.

“It affected me mentally. I had to close business for a couple days to go to court and to carry stuff to my brother at the prison, so I lost financially as well,” the 25-year-old woman said, adding, “It was stressful, very stressful.”

The army man, who said the police “were very unprofessional” while he was in custody, told the Observer: “They treated me like a criminal behind bars. They treated me worse than a dog; I was not given an opportunity to call my workplace or anything. It was traumatising.”

The 29-year-old man said, while he was happy that the court had ruled in his favour, he, however, could not shake the hurt over how the situation unfolded.