Crown Objects To Travel Request For Marc Chin, Former Employee Of Department of Vehicle and Drivers’ Licensing, Who Faces Allegations Under Anti-Corruption Act. Crown Fears That Chin May Abscond
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
The gallery of the Grand Court was packed yesterday, October 31, 2024, with several persons charged with bribery under the Anti-Corruption Act. It is alleged on various occasions that the relevant persons bribed a public official, namely Marc Edward Chin, a former Department of Vehicle and Drivers’ Licensing employee, to obtain certificates of roadworthiness without the requisite vehicle inspection. While some of these cases are pending trial or outcomes of dismissal applications, Chin’s lawyer asked the Grand Court to approve Chin’s request to travel to the United Kingdom. The Crown objected to this request.
Chin’s application to travel
According to Chin’s lawyer, Jonathon Hughes, Chin plans to travel to the United Kingdom to attend a wedding. It is expected that he would stay at a fixed address.
Concerning what the Court must consider to vary bail conditions to approve Chin’s travel, Hughes referred to section 19 of the Bail Act. This states:
19. A court or police officer, in order to come to a conclusion for the purpose of section 18, may take into consideration (amongst other things):
(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence (and the probable method of dealing with the defendant or offender);
(b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the defendant or offender;
(c) the defendant’s or offender’s record as respect the fulfilment of his obligations under previous grants of bail (whether granted under this Law or otherwise); and
(d) in the case of a person referred to in section 17(1)(a), the strength of the evidence of the defendant having committed the offence.
Hughes argued that, regarding section 19(c), Chin previously travelled and fulfilled his obligations. For example, Chin reportedly received permission to travel to the United States, provided details of his accommodation and returned his passport on the date instructed. Therefore, all previous bail variations allowing travel, which the Court granted, were honoured by Chin. Concerning the current request to travel to the United Kingdom, Hughes argued that “nothing has changed”, and there is no reason to suggest that Chin will flee.
Crown’s objection to Chin’s travel request
Notwithstanding Chin’s previous fulfilment of bail conditions allowing him to travel, the Crown objected, saying that “there is a real concern that notwithstanding Mr Chin lives on the island… he may not return.”
The Crown added that they checked the address where Chin proposes to stay in the United Kingdom; however, it is for sale, so the Crown considered it not a “suitable address.”
Regarding the risk of Chin absconding, the Crown noted that Chin was jointly charged with a gentleman named Mr Salmon. Reportedly, Salmon was on bail for the charges and then absconded.
The Crown concluded that “there is a real concern that notwithstanding the fact that Mr Chin is a Caymanian, notwithstanding the fact that the ACC have permitted him to travel in the past, there is a real concern” [that Chin will abscond].
Judge’s commentary on travel request
Addressing Chin’s lawyer, Justice Richards noted that although a UK address was provided for Chin’s travel, “if the residence is up for sale, there will come a point when someone goes to that residence ask and nobody knows where the persons have gone to.”
Justice Richards indicated further that if the bail variation was considered, the Court may require a surety for a large sum, perhaps $50,000.
Justice Richards concluded that she would need to consider the request further, considering the number of charges and possible penalties Chin would face if convicted.
Note to readers:
As an update to the above, on November 1, 2024, Chin’s lawyer Jonathon Hughes confirmed the following variation of bail conditions:
Permission to travel granted, noting history of travel in the past. Court notes case is a serious matter, but court is satisfied given previous compliance that risk is reduced and can be met with appropriate conditions:
$50,000 security
2 local sureties in the sum of $5,000
Passport to be returned by 9am on 12 November 24.
