Log In

Reset Password

Judge dismisses all but one charge against paralegal

Virtually all the charges against a paralegal accused of perverting the course of justice were discharged in the Supreme Court yesterday.

Acting Puisne Judge Paul Doherty directed the jury to return not guilty verdicts on eight of nine charges against Eron Hill.

The jury was left to deliberate on count one of the charges, which read that Mr Hill on October 29, 2023 sent, by means of a public electronic communication service, to Detective Constable Michael Redfern, a photograph that was “grossly offensive”.

The jury heard earlier that the photograph — which depicted Mr Redfern and retired Detective Inspector Dean Martin — was published on the social-media platform Instagram with the caption “Corrupt @ Bermuda Police”.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Doherty told the jury that on Wednesday he was called to determine whether a verdict of guilty could be returned on the charges against Mr Hill.

The judge said: “I concluded that there is no evidence on which you could find beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Hill was guilty of these eight offences.

“These charges have been disposed of and are no longer before you for consideration”.

Mr Hill, representing himself, was initially charged with three counts of attempting to pervert the course of public justice through social-media posts made between October 29 and November 30, 2023.

He was additionally charged with six offences under the Electronic Communications Act, including that he made “grossly offensive” posts about police officers and caused one man’s phone to ring repeatedly to harass him.

Carrington Mahoney, for the Crown, in his closing speech, told the jury that the case stemmed from the October 25, 2023 arrest of a murder accused who had breached his bail conditions.

He said the murder accused, who was fitted with an electronic monitoring device, had changed his address without the approval of the court.

On the date in question, Mr Mahoney said Mr Martin, who had access to a police database which determined that the man had breached his bail conditions, arrested the murder accused.

Mr Mahoney told the jury that on October 29, 2023, Mr Hill, who was affiliated with the murder accused through legal service, sent a message to Mr Redfern’s police issued phone.

He told the court that the arrest of the murder accused caused Mr Hill to become upset.

Mr Mahoney alleged that subsequently, on October 29, 2023 Mr Hill attempted to contact Mr Redfern from two phone numbers.

He reminded the jury that Mr Redfern in his evidence, traced one of the numbers which called his phone as Mr Hill’s through e-mails he and the defendant exchanged in February 2023.

Mr Mahoney also reminded the jury of evidence from Wayne Edwards, a manager at the Bermuda Security Group, who told the court earlier that he received missed calls from a number on October 29, 2023 which the court heard was linked to Mr Hill.

Mr Edwards also told the court of a voice note — which he identified as Mr Hill’s — which he received from the murder accused’s phone

The prosecutor said the Crown presented a “ domino flow of evidence” relating to the calls and messages from the numbers linked to Mr Hill on that date.

Mr Mahoney also told the jury that the case was not based on the suppression of free speech as he noted that people had certain rights.

He added: “With every right there are certain responsibilities. It is about responsible exercising of that right.”

In his closing speech, Mr Hill urged the jury to return a verdict of “not guilty”.

The defendant argued that the word “’corrupt’ is an opinion” and he also told the jury that it was impossible to conclude that Mr Redfern was “grossly offended” as mentioned in the charge.

Speaking on his arrest, Mr Hill alleged: “They set the forces of the state to arrest me, to detain me and to charge me.”

Mr Justice Doherty began his summary of the case yesterday. The trial continues.

It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case