Another DPP Failure:  Eight Deep Freezers.  233 Pounds Of Ganja.  Case Dismissed For Abuse Of Process

By Alric Lindsay

In a strongly worded ruling delivered on  June 12, 2026, Acting Magistrate Adam Roberts discharged defendants in a two-year-old ganja conspiracy and possession case, citing repeated failures by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to meet its disclosure obligations, misleading of the court, and a broader breakdown in trust that rendered a fair trial impossible.

The case stemmed from a 2024 search of a West Bay premises where police allegedly discovered eight deep freezers in a basement storage area containing 233.58 pounds of ganja in 433 Ziploc bags and additional garbage bags.  Alleged evidence included CCTV footage of vehicles, fingerprints on freezers and bags, and investigative links to sea-based importation.

However, after multiple false starts, wasted court days, and persistent disclosure shortcomings spanning more than two years, Acting Magistrate Adam Roberts concluded that the prosecution’s handling amounted to an abuse of process.

Key Reasons for Dismissal

Acting Magistrate Roberts highlighted several critical failings mirroring patterns seen in other recent Summary Court decisions.

First, there were constant adjournments and case delays.

In this instance, the trial was set down for three days. The first day was taken up with a site visit and an application.  On the second day, the case was adjourned after it was revealed that authorities had made notes that were not disclosed.   The trial was adjourned and set aside for two more court days.

Subsequently, Acting Magistrate Roberts was informed that the DPP would request an adjournment because a DPP lawyer had received a late notification of his involvement in a Grand Court trial. This would mean a total of five wasted days. The defence gave notice that it would oppose the application, pointing out that the DPP had still not fulfilled its disclosure obligations.

To exacerbate matters, a new DPP lawyer was assigned to the case. This would require the new DPP lawyer to familiarise himself with a two-year-old case and get up to speed quickly.

After making several observations, Acting Magistrate Roberts said:

I was told that following the enforced adjournment in February, Ms. Halliday-Davis sent an email (which I have seen) to Mr. Ferguson specifically asking for disclosure of all notebooks, a copy of the search warrant, the complete RMS of the investigation and the custody records. I pause at this point to note that as long ago as April 2025 (at the Case Management Hearing) four matters were pointed out as outstanding, including the “Full RCIPS Incident Report” and contemporaneous notebooks.

Acting Magistrate Roberts added:

By the close of business on May 25th, none of these items had been served; at court the next day DS Barnett’s notebook was served and no others. I – and the defence lawyers – was told that all other contemporaneous notes were in the search log. But the defence had been told throughout that there were no contemporaneous or recent notes in notebooks at all, yet here was DS Barnett’s notebook.

I am grateful to Mr. Walcolm for drawing particular attention to the decision of Chapple J. in R v Moss & Watson. Not only does it set out guiding principles with admirable clarity, it also bears some striking similarities to this case. In particular, the failure to disclose or even admit the existence of disclosable material by the prosecuting authorities.

Acting Magistrate Roberts continued:

A ‘supplemental report’ to the RMS was served but no RMS on May 26th. In scrambling to satisfy its disclosure obligations, the Crown has if anything weakened its own position – the RMS, a 34-page document – was finally served on May 27th after the prosecutor was told on May 26th that it didn’t exist. This was said in open court on May 26th, and I expressed surprise and scepticism – how can a supplemental report exist to something that doesn’t exist? To what is it supplemental?

There was here, to adopt Andrew Ratcliffe’s words in Moss and Watson, ‘an absence of coordination at each level and a series of missed opportunities.’  Looking in from the outside, it seems that the ODPP and its representatives have been ill served by the RCIPS. They were told there were no notebooks, but one turned up; they were told there was no RMS, but one turned up; there is a reference to a search warrant in a statement, yet there was no warrant. A search under the Misuse of Drugs Act is permissible on reasonable suspicion but the defence advocates make the point that they would wish to explore what that reasonable suspicion is, now they know there is no warrant.

The new DPP lawyer, familiarising himself with the case, sought to convince Acting Magistrate Roberts that, while there were admitted failures, such failures could be remedied by the court process and by allowing the trial to proceed.

Concerning this, Acting Magistrate Roberts explained:

For the failures to be capable of being remedied by the court process, there first has to be complete disclosure and time for the defence to consider it and – if necessary – raise questions about it. We are not yet in that position.

I have to ask myself – is this fair to the defence? How can the attorneys – even experienced Counsel – prepare unless they can have confidence that disclosure is complete? This case is 2 years old; there have been 4 trial dates and still questions about outstanding disclosure are still cropping up.

Acting Magistrate Roberts then considered what would be the effect of further delays on the well-being of the defendants. He noted that one defendant was “heavily pregnant and has used all her accrued leave to attend court; the strain on her must be immense.”

Acting Magistrate Roberts highlighted further concerns, saying:

No matter how strong a case looks, the defendants have entered not guilty pleas, and it therefore falls to the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The defendants, their lawyers and the court are entitled to expect that this is done expeditiously and justly.

Acting Magistrate Roberts concluded:

This week, we passed the 2-year anniversary of the search and arrest of the defendants; yet we have not yet started the trial to the point of hearing any substantive evidence.

There are a number of considerations here:

   a)  The considerable delay and mounting number of wasted court days and false starts

   b)  The piecemeal way in which disclosure has been handled

   c)  The failure of the prosecution to fulfil its disclosure obligations by the date on which the continuation of the trial was set

   d)  The frankly disgraceful way that Crown counsel has been misinformed which inevitably resulted in defence counsel and the court being misled. There has been a breakdown in trust because of the way disclosure has been approached and dealt with by the police.

All of these considerations have left me in no doubt that this prosecution should be stopped. The delays and failures amount to an abuse of process, such that I can no longer be sure that the defendants can receive a fair hearing.

The application by counsel for the defendants succeeds and I stay these proceedings.

The defendants are discharged.

Emphasis on Integrity of Justice

Had Acting Magistrate Roberts not intervened with a decisive stay, the integrity of the Cayman Islands justice system could have suffered severe damage. Proceeding despite systemic prosecutorial lapses would have undermined public confidence in fair trial rights, encouraged further sloppy work, and risked wrongful convictions or appeals based on procedural unfairness.

It would have signalled that resource strain on defendants, court time, and DPP inefficiencies outweigh the rule of law—potentially eroding trust in how serious drug cases (involving 233+ pounds of ganja allegedly imported and stored in a residential basement with power cords routed from an apartment) are handled. By ruling as he did, akin to his approach in other matters where he carefully weighed evidence thresholds, the acting magistrate protected the process itself from becoming a tool of inefficiency rather than justice.

Legal Context

The decision draws on Criminal Procedure Rules and precedents emphasizing just disposal of cases, fairness, and protection of the accused’s rights. It is not about punishing the DPP, but safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process.

What Happens Next

Defendants are discharged. It is understood that the DPP may consider an appeal or recharging, but the ruling stands as a strong caution on timely, complete disclosure in complex cases involving forensics, CCTV, and multi-suspect operations.

This outcome highlights ongoing scrutiny of the criminal justice system’s efficiency. Defence counsels Greg Walcom and Lee Halliday-Davis represented the defendants. Various lawyers represented the DPP at different stages.

Share on Facebook

Post on X