The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

A FORMER chief executive officer of the Department of Immigration yesterday testified that she could not recall interviewing a Bahamian-Jamaican couple who were accused of entering into a fraudulent marriage, without her interview sheet.

Betty Bain made the comments when she was cross-examined by Frederick Smith, QC, in an ongoing civil case revolving around the alleged rape of the Jamaican woman by a chief immigration officer over six years ago.

Norman Bastian was accused of sexually assaulting Claudia Edwards Bethel on December 15, 2014. At the time, it was reported that he took her to his home and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him.

Mrs Bethel previously waived her anonymity in an interview with The Tribune last year. She also launched a civil suit against the government after her rape case was tossed out of court years ago.

Mr Bastian was never convicted of the offence.

When he was interrogated in 2014, he claimed Mrs Edwards Bethel paid Mario Bethel to enter into a fake marriage, with their vows exchanged shortly after she first arrived in The Bahamas in early 2010.

Betty Bain who worked at the Department of Immigration as a chief executive officer and office manager from 1997-2012, was the woman who interviewed the Bethels when they were applying for Mrs Edward Bethel’s spousal permit.

Yesterday, she swore in her April 20 affidavit to stand as her witness statement and evidence in chief in the proceedings.

When Mr Smith asked her if she had “specific recollection” of interviewing the couple, Mrs Bain who is now 73, said she did not remember the interview, but knew she conducted it since she recognised her handwriting and signature on the interview sheet.

“So, you would have difficulty in remembering what was said or not said at that interview correct?” Mr Smith asked the woman.

“Well looking at the interview sheet, I remember because of my handwriting and my signature. But if you call the person’s name to me I’m unable to say (whether) I did that interview,” Mrs Bain replied.

Mrs Bain said immigration officials would “usually” use an interview sheet as a guide which would have them question the foreign spouse first and then the Bahamian spouse to confirm the relevant information.

“What I’m asking you is do you have any specific recollection of that happening or are you saying that as a result of the interview sheet?” Mr Smith then asked.

“I can’t remember the interview, but I know what the department normally requires, and the interview sheet is right here, and we question the foreign spouse and then we question the Bahamian spouse,” Mrs Bain replied.

Mr Smith then referenced paragraph six of Mrs Bain’s affidavit, where it stated that she interviewed the Bethels “regarding inter alia how they met and how their relationship developed”. He also asked her if she could recall which person told her what during the interview without referencing her interview sheet.

When she said she could not, Mr Smith said the interview did not differentiate between what was said by Mr and Mrs Bethel because it was “carefully crafted to avoid saying who said what”.

In response Mrs Bain stated: “I didn’t have to go into detail. From my handwriting I know I interviewed the couple (so) I didn’t have to go into detail and say I interviewed Mrs Bethel first and Mr Bethel second”.

Mr Smith said he was “having a difficulty” with Mrs Bain’s response because paragraph six of her affidavit said she interviewed the couple, but she was stating she had “no recollection of interviewing them other than the handwritten note”.

“I put it to you that your affidavit appears to suggest that you in fact have specific recollections of an interview when you do not. Is that correct?” Mr Smith stated.

“I cannot remember the actual interview sitting in the front of them, but from my interview sheet handwriting and my signature I did the interview, I asked them the questions and I honestly wrote what was told to me,” Mrs Bain replied.

During the cross-examination, Mr Smith also asked Mrs Bain if she agreed that there was “no offence under the Immigration Act of a marriage of convenience or a fraudulent marriage” enforced up to 2012 when she retired. He also asked her if she was ever told to have a “heightened scrutiny in respect to what might be referred to as marriages of convenience”.

In response, Mrs Bain said she could not recall being instructed to do so. She also said she didn’t have the authority to tell someone she was interviewing that they had to make sure their marriage was not fraudulent.

Instead, she said she would normally conduct an interview to the “best of her ability” before the person’s application would be submitted to the director of immigration for his consideration.

Mr Smith then posed another question: “As the chief executive officer of the Department of Immigration, were you aware of a policy whereby the applicant of a spouse who was a citizen of the Bahamas would not be given a spousal permit if you –or anybody else in your department after investigation – suspected that the marriage was one of convenience or fraudulent?

In response, Mrs Bain stated: “Well, sir, if we have (a) suspicion or adverse report on an application, we would send that for further investigation by the investigation Department of Immigration.”

Yesterday, Mr Smith also argued that the second paragraph of Mrs Bain’s affidavit was “misleading” as it stated that she joined the Immigration Department as a chief executive officer, despite the fact that Mrs Bain was insisting she was just an executive officer “in” the department.

“I came up the rank,” she said. “I was an executive officer, then the next rank was senior executive officer, then the next rank was chief executive officer. That doesn’t mean I was in charge of the department. I’m sure you are familiar with position titles in the public service. The positions are given to us, the titles are given to us, but that does not mean that we are in charge of the department,” she explained.

In his closing statement, Mr Smith asserted: “It’s very important in this case for us to try and determine who said what and whether or not what you wrote down was accurate and that’s why I’m going through your affidavit which I put to you gives the appearance of you having an actual recollection of an interview which you don’t, correct?

“I don’t, but I know this is my handwriting,” Mrs Bain replied.

The hearing continues on May 3.