No more! - Supreme Court blocks fresh bail bid for cop in smishing scam case

The Supreme Court has shut the door on a fresh bid for bail by Constable Marlando Rowe, ruling that he cannot relitigate bail decisions that have already been challenged even up to the Privy Council, Jamaica’s final appellate court.

The Clarendon lawman was among six persons charged in a multimillion-dollar smishing scam involving an elderly bank customer in 2024, after US$5,500 (about J$840,000) was transferred from the complainant's account to his.

Justice Wint-Blair, in her judgment handed down last month, found that Rowe, who has been in custody for more than a year, had exhausted his statutory right under the Bail Act, 2023, to challenge earlier rulings, The court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to revisit the matter.

Rowe, a 16-year veteran of the Jamaica Constabulary Force,  was first charged with unauthorised possession of ammunition and granted bail in the Clarendon Parish Court.

He was later charged, along with five co-accused, with receiving stolen property, engaging in transactions involving criminal property, facilitating the use of criminal property, and possession of criminal property in relation to the smishing scheme. 

Following those additional charges, bail was refused in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court (Criminal Division), and his earlier bail was revoked. His appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed, as was a subsequent bid before the Court of Appeal on jurisdictional grounds. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council later refused him permission to appeal, finding no arguable case of a serious miscarriage of justice.

The case stems from an August 2024 operation by the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency, which searched Rowe’s Clarendon home while investigating large deposits into his bank account. Ammunition was reportedly found during the search, resulting in the firearms charge.

Rowe has maintained that the ammunition was lawfully held for safekeeping, claiming it was entrusted to him by licensed firearm holder Wilfred Lopez after the death of a justice of the peace, and that the Firearm Licensing Authority instructed him to store it. He also denied knowledge of any criminal activity linked to the funds deposited in his account, saying he was told the money came from betting activities.

His lawyer, King’s Counsel Hugh Wildman, argued that bail was unfairly denied and pointed to alleged comments by a parish court judge suggesting a reluctance to grant bail because Rowe was a police officer. He also noted that Rowe had complied with previous bail conditions and that co-accused persons had been granted bail in similar circumstances.

However, attorney Jameila Simpson, representing the prosecution, argued there were no new facts or changed circumstances to justify another bail application. She said the seriousness of the allegations and inconsistencies in Rowe’s explanations supported the continued refusal of bail.

In her ruling, Justice Wint-Blair emphasised that while the Constitution protects the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty, those rights operate within the limits of the Bail Act, which allows only one appeal per bail decision.

“The decisions before this court are not fresh bail decisions; they are the same that have already been appealed and determined. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the current appeal,” she ruled.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

Justice Wint-Blair noted Rowe’s clean disciplinary record and his responsibility for his 11-year-old visually impaired daughter, but said these factors could not override the statutory framework. The court urged that the case proceed expeditiously, with trial set for September 10.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com