Alric Lindsay 
By Alric Lindsay
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions charged the wrong person in a planning case today, August 4, 2026, drawing in a woman who happens to share the same first and last name as the intended defendant.
Looking at the facts, Judy Ann Ebanks and Shelly Shekita Smith were named as co-defendants before the Chief Magistrate today, charged with failing to comply with an enforcement notice. Reportedly, this relates to a change of use.
After providing the Chief Magistrate with a copy of the land register, Attorney Waide DaCosta explained the confusion over the two women share the name Shelly Smith. He said:
The co-defendant in this matter is the wrong one… on the charge.
[The land register] says Shelly Smith.
We know that they have the wrong person because Shelly Smith is Ms Judy’s sister… [and] the date of birth [referred to by the DPP] is wrong.
Regarding the date of birth, DaCosta said that the real Shelly Smith (nee Miller) was born in 1950, while the Shelly Shekita Smith named on the DPP charge was born in 1980.
In the circumstances, the real Shelly Smith (nee Miller) was never served with a summons.
After hearing this, the Chief Magistrate said the following to Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions:
First of all, let’s get the charge correct.
You have [the] charge as Shelly Shekita Smith, who is not THE Shelly Smith.
DPP Crown Counsel responded, saying that she would “undertake to make the relevant inquiries” and make the necessary application. The expected outcome of this exercise is that the charge against the wrongly identified woman, Shelly Shekita Smith, will now be withdrawn.
Note to readers
There is no suggestion that the wrongly-charged woman had any connection to the planning matter. She was drawn into the case solely through the DPP’s error.
Attorney Waide DaCosta represented Ebanks in this case. He also acted as “next friend” for Shelly Smith (nee Miller).
