Two of the documents submitted as part of a man?s allegedly fraudulent Bermuda status application had been tampered with, a key Crown witness said in the Supreme Court yesterday.

Karen Ann Lefavre, a fraud officer from the Registrar General?s office in Thunder Bay, Ontario, gave evidence throughout yesterday in the complicated trial of Robert William Martyn, a lawyer with Westbury Limited, owned by Canadian billionaire Michael DeGroote.

Mr. Martyn, 42, of Harrington Sound Road, Smith?s, is charged with conspiracy to defraud the Ministry of Home Affairs and Labour by submitting false documents as part of his and his father?s Bermuda status application in September, 2000.

The crux of the Crown?s case is that that the defendant conspired with his father, William Robert Martin to:

Alter the birth place of the grandfather William Martin on the father?s birth certificate from England to Bermuda, so as to aid the father?s Bermuda status application and therefore his son?s.

Mislead the Department of Immigration into accepting that the father, a Bermudian status holder, was domiciled in Bermuda at the time of his son?s birth, which would mean the defendant was also entitled to status.

The defence, by contrast, is maintaining the defendant had submitted his father?s birth certificate and his father?s sworn declaration of domicile as part of his own status application in good faith and had no idea he was providing allegedly fraudulent documents.

Meanwhile, when presented with a copy of the defendants father?s birth certificate ? which Ms Lefavre first saw in May, 2001 when it was faxed to her by Chief Immigration Officer Martin Brewer who was investigating the application ? she highlighted a number of problems with the document which cast serious doubt as to its authenticity. The father was born on December 14, 1935 in Ontario, but she said the format of the birth certificate was inconsistent with the format used in the 1930s in the province, while the certificate?s registration number in the top right hand corner appeared to have been altered. The certificate did not have an official stamp of registration, she added, while the watermark was also not visible.

Such problems, she said, among a host of others, meant the certificate could not have been issued from her office ? although how, when or by who the document was altered were not questions addressed by the Crown.

Ms Lefavre was later asked to compare the birth certificate of the father submitted as part of the defendant?s application with the copy stored on the Registrar General?s computer system.

One glaring difference highlighted by Ms Lefavre, and one of the key points of the Crown?s case, is that the allegedly false document says that the grandfather of the defendant was born in Bermuda in 1899, while the other document says he was born in England in the same year.

The birth place of the grandfather is crucial to the entire case, in that it underpins both the father?s and the son?s right to claim status.

Similarly, the lack of an issue date at the top of the defendant?s birth certificate ? which records the date of birth as May 16, 1962 ? was evidence that it had been ?altered in some way?, Ms LeFavre said.

The latter testimony contradicted that of Dr. Brewer?s last week, who told the court he had been satisfied that the defendant?s birth certificate was genuine, but rather he had harboured serious concerns over the father?s claim ? sworn in a official declaration and included with the defendant?s application ? that he was domiciled in Bermuda at the time of his son?s birth. A pilot with Air Canada who maintained four homes in different countries, the father would have to have been domiciled in Bermuda at the time of his son?s birth for his son to be eligible for status.