The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has reserved its decision on whether former Bahamas Contractor’s Association president Stephen Wrinkle stole electricity from the Bahamas Electricity Corporation.

The 63-year-old president of Wrinkle’s Construction and Development appeared in the appellate court yesterday for the first time in two years since he was granted $2,000 bail pending the appeal of his conviction from the Magistrate’s Court.

Wrinkle had been fined $1,000 and sentenced to a year in prison for dishonest consumption of electricity after being told that his actions between February and March 2011 were “inexcusable”.

Prosecutors alleged that he stole power for the Bayparl Building on Parliament Street, which he managed for Parliament Properties Ltd. Wrinkle had maintained his innocence from his arraignment in June 2011 to his conviction in January 2013.

Wrinkle’s lawyer, Murrio Ducille, argued yesterday that the trial magistrate erred in law in allowing his client to answer to the charge, notwithstanding the Crown’s failure to establish sufficient evidence to mount the charge.

“As I understand it, the two meters had no connection to the property,” Justice Jon Isaacs said.

“They were placed there by BEC,” Mr Ducille replied, adding that the electricity going through, based on the evidence, was “an administrative bungling on BEC’s part”.

“And there is evidence that there is no record of one of the meters from 1984 onward?” Justice Isaacs asked.

“That’s when the government occupied the building,” Wrinkle’s lawyer answered.

“But there was evidence from a witness who took instructions from the appellant to restore power?” Justice Isaacs probed. Mr Ducille said this evidence came after the close of the prosecution’s case.

Mr Ducille informed the court that there was a dispute over outstanding balances and consumption on the two meters, which led BEC to address a letter to Mr Wrinkle, notwithstanding that he did not own the building.

Crown respondent Anthony Delaney told Justices Anita Allen, Neville Adderley and Isaacs that the “two meters were not registered to BEC where power was being consumed”.

“So it should not have been used?” Justice Allen asked. Mr Delaney affirmed her suggestion. 

“Were there no corresponding billings for it?” Justice Adderley asked.

“They were getting a bill, but not in respect to those two meters,” the prosecutor replied.

“Isn’t it the evidence that BEC installed the meters? If they fail to bill the consumer, how does that amount to a criminal charge?” Justice Isaacs asked.

Mr Delaney conceded that BEC did install the meters but added that negligence did not make stealing electricity right.

“I was under the impression that these meters were attached to an account. But it seems it’s not the case,” Justice Allen said.

Justice Adderley asked why the meters were not removed from the premises as opposed to being switched off and vulnerable to tampering.

Mr Delaney contended that the offence began when electricity was redirected on the instructions of Mr Wrinkle, who he said was in charge of operations for the building.

“According to the evidence of the prosecution, BEC installed the meters, which doesn’t happen willy-nilly,”Justice Isaacs noted.

“So whose fault is that?” Justice Allen added, highlighting the evidence of a BEC employee who could not answer on “how a meter gets on to an account”.

Mr Ducille said his client should not be held criminally responsible “if BEC is derelict in knowing what is owed to them”.

Addressing the Crown’s point on power being redirected after a disconnection, Mr Ducille argued that the energy was redirected to the building owner’s account that was billed and paid for.

The judges asked Mr Delaney on what evidence the magistrate relied to conclude that consumption came from the meter. The prosecutor replied that the court accepted the evidence of BEC inspectors that lights were on in the building, despite it being switched off.

“The fact that the lights are on does not mean you are consuming BEC’s electricity. That could be a generator,” Justice Allen suggested.

Mr Delaney said there was no evidence of a generator.

Justice Allen then asked the prosecutor if he agreed that the owner of the building should have been charged with dishonest consumption, and the appellant with abetment, based on the evidence the Crown produced at trial.

The prosecutor contended that Mr Wrinkle was “the directing mind”.

Justice Allen said the court would reserve its decision on the matter.