The jury hearing the trial of Bermuda Housing Corporation (BHC) conman Terrence Smith had its impartiality "fatally compromised" by two members, it has been claimed during his appeal.

Smith, 47, believes he did not get a fair trial because one jury member was an alleged political party affiliate with a relative in a formerly prominent position within the BHC.

The other, he claims, was compromised through being a member of the media.

The Royal Gazette is heeding a warning from the Court of Appeal judges to exercise caution in identifying the jurors, and has made an editorial decision not to do so.

Smith was found guilty last March of siphoning off more than $1.2 million in taxpayers' money from the BHC, which provides housing for the needy.

He abused his former position as a Property Officer at the quango to authorise fraudulent payments to carpenter Steven Barbosa who submitted fictitious bills for his work.

When the overpayments came through, Barbosa passed the profits from the scam back to Smith who blew them on living a life of luxury at his former home in Tee Street, Devonshire.

Barbosa turned supergrass, and testified as the key witness in the case against Smith, having been granted immunity from prosecution.

Smith was found guilty after a 19-day trial that heard from more than 40 witnesses, and subsequently jailed for eight years.

Smith's lawyer, British-based QC Patrick O'Connor, began the appeal hearing yesterday by asking for it to be adjourned to give him more time to prepare his case — claiming Smith had to dismiss two previous lawyers through no fault of his own.

Smith lost confidence in the first, Larry Scott, because he gave interviews to the media after the trial admitting to having been "out of his depth" and "out of his league" during the case, claimed Mr. O'Connor.

The parting of ways last year also came in the light of a serious dispute between Mr. Scott and Smith about fees owed which is the subject of ongoing litigation, he added.

Smith dismissed the second lawyer, Charles Richardson, on October 11 this year because he was unhappy about him acting for Premier Ewart Brown in a recent civil case, said Mr. O'Connor.

In that case, Mr. Richardson made an unsuccessful bid to get the Supreme Court to bar the media from reporting more about the Premier from a Police dossier on the BHC scandal that was leaked to the media.

Mr. O'Connor said Mr. Richardson took on that case without consulting Smith, who viewed the move as a conflict of interest.

He further claimed that Mr. Richardson was responsible for an unacceptable delay in the preparation of Smith's appeal during the year he had conduct of it, having failed to meet him and to file grounds for the appeal with the court.

Asking for the appeal to be delayed, Mr. O'Connor said he had only been able to file grounds of appeal for the first time on Friday, having arrived in Bermuda the day before.

Although he did not kick off the appeal in full due to that request, Mr. O'Connor went on to outline some other points he plans to rely on.

These include that Smith's original defence team — Larry Scott and Kenrick James — did not have access to the Police dossier on the BHC that has since been detailed in the media.

He pointed out that these documents list "suspected criminality or dishonesty" on the part of others according to reports.

The Mid-Ocean News detailed allegations of widespread fraud within the BHC in an article published in June, said to be based on documents from the Police probe.

Access to the allegations against others within the Police dossier could have provided Smith's defence team with "ammunition" in cross-examining key witnesses, had it known about them during the trial, claimed Mr. O'Connor.

He told the Court of Appeal that a central plank of the case against Smith was that three BHC bosses who signed off fraudulent invoices — General Manager Raymonde Dill, Finance Manager Robert Clifford and Rental Manager Wendy Bassett — told the trial they did not believe them to be false.

Mr. O'Connor claimed that if there was a widespread culture of fraud at the BHC the trio "may in fact have not cared less".

He went on to question how they could have been genuinely unaware of what was going on.

Asked by the three appeal judges whether he was alleging the managers were involved in frauds, Mr. O'Connor replied: "Involved in frauds may be different from not being involved in the frauds but turning a blind eye."

The three would have been cross examined on the "blind eye" theory if the contents of the Police dossier had been disclosed, he claimed.

He explained that he would like the Crown to analyse the Police dossier themselves as part of the appeal "for them to reach a fresh conclusion on it."

Mr. O'Connor also raised the prospect of the judges hearing the appeal being asked to consider the dossier as part of the appeal.

The documents detailing the Police probe into allegations of corruption at the BHC were leaked to the press, and have been at the centre of recent failed bids on the part of the Attorney General and Commissioner of Police as well as Dr. Brown to gag further reports press. Despite their court defeats, no further revelations have been detailed beyond those in the Mid-Ocean News and ZBM reports which sparked the gag attempt.

Prosecutor Kulandra Ratneser asked the Court of Appeal to not only reject the request for an adjournment — but also reject hearing the appeal altogether on the grounds that Mr. O'Connor's submissions are without merit.

He too outlined his case as part of the argument about whether the case should proceed, telling the court that Smith did not object to the two jurors in question being on the panel despite having the opportunity to do so.

He claimed it is unacceptable that the Crown was only handed the grounds of appeal by Smith's team at 3.45 p.m on Friday, with the allegation about the jurors outlined there for the first time.

In addition, he said there was no issue with their presence as there was no evidence the first juror was compromised by being related to a former member of BHC staff or that the juror was a member of any political party during the trial.

He argued that the second juror, a member of the media, was only in the same position as anyone else who pays attention to the news.

Furthermore, he said there was "no allegation whatsoever" that the three signatories to the cheques involved in the Smith case — Mr. Dill, Mr. Clifford and Ms Bassett — were complicit in the crime.

There is no evidence of widespread fraud at the BHC, Mr. Ratneser went on to claim, telling the Court of Appeal the Smith case is a straightforward one about him using Mr. Barbosa to cream off cash through inflated invoices.

"Nothing to do with politicians, nothing to do with anybody else at the BHC at all," he said.

Mr. Ratneser added that Smith's defence team during the trial was given access to all the documents involved in the case, with nothing barred from them.

The Court of Appeal is set to rule today on the questions of whether the appeal should proceed at all, and whether it should be adjourned for a period if it does.

Meanwhile, Smith remains in custody.