R v Myles ( Wayne Carlos) - Verdict Judgment

¶ IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL SIDE INDICTMENT NO: 50/17 THE QUEEN v. WAYNE CARLOS MYLES Appearances: Ellie Fargin, Senior Crown Counsel for the Crown Mr. Alex Davies of McGrath Tonner for the Defendant Before: Justice Marlene I. Carter (Actg.) Judge Alone Trial: 25th March 2019 – 5th April 2019 Delivery of Decision: 22nd May 2019 HEADNOTE Criminal Law – Living on the Earnings of Prostitution – Attempting to live on the earnings of Prostitution - Trial by Judge Alone - VERDICT JUDGMENT INDICTMENT

¶ [1] The Defendant was tried on an indictment, dated¹ the 3rd April 2019, containing 11 counts as follows: i. COUNT 1: LIVING ON THE EARNINGS OF PROSTITUTION, contrary to s.139(1)(a) Penal Code (2013 Revision), with the particulars of the offence being that, Wayne Carlos Myles, between the 18th day of November 2014 and the 26th day of November 2014, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, knowingly lived wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution. ii. COUNT 2: LIVING ON THE EARNINGS OF PROSTITUTION, contrary to s.139(1)(a) and s.139(2) Penal Code (2013 Revision), with the particulars of the offence being that, Wayne Carlos Myles, on or about the 16th and the 17th days of September 2015, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, knowingly lived wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution. iii. COUNT 3: ATTEMPTING TO LIVE ON THE EARNINGS OF PROSTITUTION, contrary to s.139(1)(a) and s.139(2) Penal Code (2013 Revision), with the particulars of the offence being that, Wayne Carlos Myles, on the 22nd day of September 2015, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, attempted knowingly to live wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution. iv. COUNT 4: ATTEMPTING TO LIVE ON THE EARNINGS OF PROSTITUTION, contrary to s.139(1)(a) and s.139(2) Penal Code (2013 Revision), with the particulars of the offence being that, Wayne Carlos ¹ Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Judgment explain the date on this indictment. Myles, on the 5th day of March 2015, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, attempted knowingly to live wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution. v. COUNT 5: ATTEMPTING TO LIVE ON THE EARNINGS OF PROSTITUTION, contrary to s.139(1)(a) and s.139(2) Penal Code (2013 Revision), with the particulars of the offence being that, Wayne Carlos Myles, on the 5th day of July 2015, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, attempted knowingly to live wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution. vi. COUNT 6: ATTEMPTING TO LIVE ON THE EARNINGS OF PROSTITUTION, contrary to s.139(1)(a) and s.139(2) Penal Code (2013 Revision), with the particulars of the offence being that, Wayne Carlos Myles, on or about the 25th and 26th days of July 2015, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, attempted knowingly to live wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution. vii. COUNT 7: ATTEMPTING TO LIVE ON THE EARNINGS OF PROSTITUTION, contrary to s.139(1)(a) and s.139(2) Penal Code (2013 Revision), with the particulars of the offence being that, Wayne Carlos Myles, on the 28th day of August 2015, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, attempted knowingly to live wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution. viii. COUNT 8: ATTEMPTING TO LIVE ON THE EARNINGS OF PROSTITUTION, contrary to s.139(1)(a) and s.139(2) Penal Code (2013 Revision), with the particulars of the offence being that, Wayne Carlos Myles, on the 18th and 19th days of September 2015, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, attempted knowingly to live wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution. ix. COUNT 9: ATTEMPTING TO LIVE ON THE EARNINGS OF PROSTITUTION, contrary to s.139(1)(a) and s.139(2) Penal Code (2013 Revision), with the particulars of the offence being that, Wayne Carlos Myles, on the 10th and 11th days of February 2016, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, attempted knowingly to live wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution. x. COUNT 10²: LIVING ON THE EARNINGS OF PROSTITUTION, contrary to s.139(1)(a) and s.139(2) Penal Code (2013 Revision), with the particulars of the offence being that, Wayne Carlos Myles, on or about the 16th day of January 2015, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, knowingly lived wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution. xi. COUNT 11³: LIVING ON THE EARNINGS OF PROSTITUTION, contrary to s.139(1)(a) and s.139(2) Penal Code (2013 Revision), with the particulars of the offence being that, Wayne Carlos Myles, on or about the 11th and the 12th days of September 2015, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, knowingly lived wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution. CLARIFICATION RE INDICTMENTS

¶ [2] The trial commenced on a 9-count Indictment dated the 4th January 2019 which was labelled Indictment 99/16 and was described by the Crown as a JOINDER Indictment. This indictment was a part of the Crown’s trial bundle on commencement. ² New count on the Amended/trial indictment ³ New count on the Amended/trial indictment

¶ [3] On April 3, 2019, in the second week of the trial, following a submission of no case to answer, I ruled that there was sufficient evidence on counts 2-9 and that count 1 needed to be amended. The Crown applied to amend, and I allowed the amendment(s). On April 4, 2019, count 1 was amended, and counts 10-11 added. The defendant was arraigned on the amended counts and pleaded Not Guilty. THE LAW ON JUDGE ALONE TRIALS

¶ [4] The Defendant elected trial by Judge Alone pursuant to s.129 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of the Cayman Islands.

¶ [5] The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA) has given some guidance on the duties of a Judge in a Judge Alone trial. In K. Richards v R⁴ Rowe JA, stated: "When a trial judge sitting alone has advised himself to the applicable principles of law, and given himself any necessary warning, he must indicate clearly in his judgment his reasons for acting as he did in order to demonstrate that he has acted with the requisite degree of caution in mind and has therefore heeded his own warning. No specific form of words is necessary for this demonstration, what is necessary is that the Judge’s mind upon the matter should be clearly revealed."

¶ [6] In Randy Martin v R⁵, Mottley JA stated as follows: "A judge sitting in a criminal case without a jury, in rendering his decision and giving his reasons for so concluding in not required to review every fact and to detail each argument on which the prosecution and defence rely as if he were summing up to a jury. The judge must set out the conclusion reached and make clear the reasons for arriving at that conclusion. He is required to have regard to any difficult or unusual points of law and to show how those points of law has in any way impacted the conclusion that he has reached." ⁴ 2001 CILR 496 ⁵ CICA Crim. Appeal No. 2/2010 (Ind. 27/2009)

¶ [7] As in all criminal trials the burden is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of the offences for which he is charged on the Indictment. There is no burden on the Defendant to prove that he is innocent. The Defendant has no obligation to prove that he is not guilty, or to explain the evidence offered by the Prosecution.

¶ [8] I will not review every single detail of the evidence, but I will address my mind to the important or prominent aspects of the evidence in deciding the critical issues in this case. I will not decide every single point that has been raised – only such matters that will enable me to determine whether the charges on the indictment have been proved.

¶ [9] I remind myself that I must have regard to the whole of the evidence that has been presented at trial and form my own judgment about that evidence. The questions of fact at issue on this trial are for me to determine.

¶ [10] I must consider all of the evidence in this case and if after having done so, I have any reasonable doubt as to whether the Defendant is guilty or not, I must resolve that doubt in favour of the Defendant and find him not guilty of the offences for which he is charged.

¶ [11] On the other hand, if having considered the evidence I am satisfied so that there is no reasonable doubt in my mind, and I am sure of the guilt of the Defendant, then it will be equally my duty to find him guilty as charged. THE CASE FOR THE CROWN

¶ [12] The Crown’s opening statement set out the context in which the indictment was brought against the defendant. It detailed as follows.

¶ [13] The Crown’s document states that the Crown’s case is that Wayne Myles between the 01.07.2014 and the 17.06.2016 knowingly attempted to live off the earnings of prostitution, or in fact did live off the earnings of prostitution in the Cayman Islands. He exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of prostitutes in such a manner as to show that he was aiding, abetting or compelling their prostitution with another person. The Crown states that, colloquially his actions would lead to him being called a ‘Pimp’.

¶ [14] The Crown’s document details that the evidence in fact comes from documented conversations and arrangements made in telephone communications through the use of WhatsApp or SMS text messaging. Wayne Myles offered prostitution services by sending promotional messages and photos. He agreed pricing and locations for prostitutes to work. The Crown say the evidence leads to the common sense conclusion that he took a monetary cut of their earnings.

¶ [15] The Crown states further that not all of his attempts at arranging services came off and that accounts for the Counts relating to attempt, on the Indictment. However, there were times when it is clear that they did. And that is reflected in the remaining Counts.

¶ [16] The Crown continues that, in overview the evidence to come is as follows. On the 22.10.2015 Officers from the RCIPS arrested a man called Alexander Ebanks. They seized from him an IPhone. That IPhone was processed by the Police using specific software that allowed for the information on it to be downloaded into a PDF or excel format.

¶ [17] The Crown states that on that IPhone, of relevance to this case, was evidence both as to prostitution and the Crown say which goes to attribution of a cell phone number 9288917 to someone called “Beenie”.

¶ [18] The Crown details that the evidence as to attribution from these examples is that the ‘pimp’ is using number 9288917 and is labelled by the other person as “Beenie”. The Crown says that is a name Wayne Myles uses. The Crown will call DC Mendez who will assist the Court with outlining his experience and knowledge of working in Grand Cayman as a first responder and the interactions he has with many persons in the George Town over several years but specifically he will say he has come to know Wayne Myles as “Beenie”. Further the Crown say that Wayne Myles is linked to the number 9288917 in many ways which will be highlighted in due course.

¶ [19] The Crown sets out that on the 15.06.2016 a Samsung Galaxy S6 was seized from Wayne Myles. It was initially processed by the RCIPS using software to try and extract the information on the handset and Sim card. Only partial information was recoverable as the phone was in a locked state. However even from the material initially recovered the Crown say that evidence both to attribute the phone and number to Wayne Myles; and evidence amount to attempting to live on the earnings of prostitution was found. The Crown states further that the RCIPS concluded that there may be more evidence in some of the material that could not be retrieved and so arranged to have this handset sent to Canada to Cellebrite, Advance Investigative Services. They were able to use custom built software to unlock the phone and remove the lock on the handset. This was not invasive and did not alter the phones content but it meant that when the handset was sent back to the Cayman Islands the RCIPS were able to extract further information on the handset including the WhatsApp account.

¶ [20] The Crown’s case is that, via WhatsApp, Wayne Myles messaged customers/potential customers, pictures of his “current stable” of women, including photos of women posing, perhaps in revealing underwear. For all the Court documents produced the faces of these ladies have been concealed. A few of the photos sent include him with a female in what would be an innocent picture, such as can be seen at page 84 and 85. There are some graphic close up photos of female genitalia sent as well leaving the receiver to be in no doubt as to what is being offered. Discussions as to pricing occur throughout the same messages which can range from his buying price (as a customer himself) of $150 to his highest selling price of $400 or $500 to include a sleep over.

¶ [21] The Crown’s case is that looking at both the SMS and WhatsApp messages there appear to be a potential 15 customers and 32 individual females being offered during the dates of this charge which underscores the size and nature of this enterprise.

¶ [22] The Crown’s case following the scrutinizing of all of the above is that the overwhelming conclusion will be that Wayne Myles uses, advertise and possesses the number 9288917 which will negate any suggestion that it was someone other than him who did/and or had, the ability to send these messages AGREED FACTS/ADMISSIONS

¶ [23] There were a number of Agreed Facts/Admissions which formed part of the Crown’s case and read into the evidence. These relate primarily to the provenance of documents which have been exhibited in this case. I have had regard to all of the agreed facts, which are as follows: IPhone from Alex Ebanks i. On the 22.10.2015 Officers from the RCIPS arrested a man called Alexander Ebanks. They seized from him an iPhone exhibited as EMT/1. ii. EMT/1 was processed with Cellbrite UFED touch and an Advance Logical Extraction was completed. This was exhibited as AB1. iii. In EMT/1 number 9288917 is stored as “Beenie” and 5467296 is stored as “Beenie”. Samsung Galaxy 6 Edge from Wayne Myles iv. On the 15.06.2016 DC Simpson seized from Wayne Myles a Samsung Galaxy 6 edge exhibited as DS/WM/1. v. On the 15.06.2016 DC Boxwell collected DS/WM/1 and found it to be locked. He confirmed that: a) the IMEI (handset number) was 353018070297226 b) the ICCID (sim card number) was 89010155050102576593 c) IMSI was (sim card number) was 346140101257659 vi. On the 17.08.2016 DC Boxwell processed DS/WM/1 the handset and sim card with Cellbrite UFED Touch ver 5.2 and the result was exhibited as AB1. vii. On the 24.11.2016 Dan Embury, the Technical Director for Cellebrite Advanced Investigative Services, Canada, received exhibit DS/WM/1. It had been sent by Joanne Delaney of RCIPS by DHL on the 21.11.2016. On the 26.11.2016 using a custom solution developed by Cellebrite the screen lock password was by passed to complete a physical extraction of the internal UFS chip and this was placed on a 64GB USB thumbdrive. That process does not alter or affect the contents of the user data contained in the handset and is non-intrusive to the content. Following that the screen lock was removed so that further analysis could be undertaken by others. On the 29.11.2016 exhibit DS/WM/1 was returned to the RCIPS in Grand Cayman. viii. On the 13.03.2017 DC Boxwell utilized Cellbrite UFED Touch on DS/WM/1 and produced DS/WM/AB2. ix. On the 27.10.2017 DC Boxwell produced the SIM report from the SIM taken from exhibit DS/WM/1 AS DSWM1/AB/SIM. x. Cable and Wireless Jamaica Limited have assisted the RCIPS with information about number 13459288917. That number was registered in the name of Adrian Bodden active from 09.05.2014 to 05.10.2017 as per exhibit SH/2 exhibit page 54. As per exhibit SH/1 and exhibit page 53 they have also confirmed it was used in the following handsets on the following dates: a) 19.10.2014 a Blackberry b) 07.09.2015 unknown c) 07.12.2015 Samsung 35301807029722 (exhibit DS/WM/1) d) 21.07.2016 Samsung SGH-T999 e) 13.08.2016 Samsung SM-G900W8 35230806082861 xi. Number 5467296 was activated on the 01.12.2009 in the name, of Tyrone Stewart and was active between February 2012 and April 2014 utilizing three different handsets as follows: a) 01.02.2012 - 17.09.2013 Blackberry Torch 9800 IMEI 35349004168221 b) 17.09.2013 – 24.04.2014 Blackberry Z10 IMEI 35401005854133 c) 24.04.2014 – 26.04.2015 Samsung Galaxy Pocket Neo S5312L IMEI 35627705033267 xii. On the 15.06.2016 Officers from RCIPS searched #38b Litigate Court Apartment 9. Initially a female occupant Marieka Hunt was present and then Wayne Myles was also. In a room that was identified as a baby room in the corner on the floor, exhibit KR1 was found which was a red folder which contained an application for a business Deposit Account for a company incorporated in 2007 called “Exxtasy Promotions Ltd. This is page 42 – 44 of the exhibits and shows the name of Wayne C. Myles and an email address of DJ_ROMEO1404@yahoo.com. The contact telephone numbers listed on the form are: 9492648 and 3252754. Savemore Rent-a-Car Ltd. xiii. Officers from RCIPS obtained unsigned rental agreements exhibited as ALS/RENT/1 exhibit pages 45-52. These show rentals in the name of Wayne Myles address 437 Will T Drive and number 9288917. Driver’s license details are also given as number 281610, expiry 02.05.2016 and the date of birth as the 14.04.1980. xiv. The dates of these are: a) 15.04.2015 exhibit page 52 b) 03.06.2015 exhibit page 51 c) 09.06.2015 exhibit page 50 d) 19.08.2015 exhibit page 49 e) 18.09.2015 exhibit page 47 f) 08.12.2015 exhibit page 46 g) 14.01.2016 exhibit page 45 Reports to the Police xv. On the 09.05.2010 incident log CAC1001076853 which can be found at exhibit pages 127 to 130, was created in relation to an incident being reported on that day by a Wayne Myles using number 5467296 at an address of “Will T Road, Bodden Town”. The date of birth given of Wayne Myles was 14.04.1980. xvi. On the 26.12.2011 incident log CAC100058953 which can be found at exhibit pages 123 to 126, was created in relation to an incident being reported on that day by a Wayne Myles using number 5467296. The date of birth given of Wayne Myles was 14.04.1980. xvii. On the 14.01.2012 incident log CAC10008795 which can be found at exhibit pages 131 to 133, was created in relation to an incident being reported on that day by a Wayne Myles using number 5467296. xviii. On the 16.04.2015 about 09.17am Shola Oremule a Communications officer took a report from a complainant Wayne Myles and entered into in the police computer records management system. The address given was 9 Little Gate, George Town and the contact numbers 9288914 and 5467692 were recorded in relation to Mr. Myles. DVDL Records for Wayne Myles xix. A 2006 dark blue BMW registration 177 116 was registered to Wayne Myles date of birth 14.04.1980 residing at 437 Will Tree Drive. It had a previous plate as 120 795. Exhibit ELEC/1 shows a screenshot of the entry on the DVDL registration system. The contact phone number is recorded as 3243027 on exhibit page 55. A photograph of Mr. Myles is included in this document. xx. Mr Wayne Myles driving license has number 281610 and was issued on the 13.05.2016, expiring on the 13.05.2019 as per exhibit ELEC 1 exhibit page 55. The license (with the same number) was renewed after the previous license expired on the 02.05.2016 as per exhibit ELEC2 exhibit page 56. The receipt for payment and application for the expired license in exhibits ELEC3 and ELEC 4 respectively, are exhibit pages 57 and 58 which show a contact email address of DJ_ROMEO1404@YAHOO.COM and an address of 437 Will T. Bodden Town. Exhibit ELEC4 contains contact numbers 5467296 and 9292249 for Mr. Myles. MoneyGram Receipt xxi. On the 26.01.2016 Wayne Myles attended MoneyGram on Shedden Road and sent funds to a Vincent Davis in the UK. He produced Driver’s License no 281610 and gave his date of birth as 14.04.1980. He also gave his address as 437 Will Drive and a phone number as 345 9288917. This was recorded in exhibit KD/001 as per exhibit page 60.

¶ [24] The Crown called three live witnesses as follows. OFFICER NAKEA MENDEZ

¶ [25] This Officer’s testimony is crucial to the Crown’s case as it sought to link the defendant to the name “Beenie”, a necessary link on the issue of attribution. The more salient aspects of Officer Mendez’ testimony are produced below.

¶ [26] Examination in chief: “I was a first responder, first in 2009 for about 2 to 3 years as an Officer in uniform in the district of George Town. I first became aware of someone called “Beenie” about 5 years back. It should be probably 11 years back. In George Town I usually task myself with meet and greet with members of the community and as such I have come in contact with the gentleman sitting in the box in the Martin Drive area of George Town. Normally I go in and speak with members of the community in bad areas, especially the younger youth and that’s when I came to know Wayne Carlos Myles, otherwise called “Beenie”. It was not a formal introduction. Nobody usually called people by their correct name. Most of them go by aliases. He did not say it but persons would refer to him as Beenie and he would answer to it. I myself called him by that name and he answered by that and that’s how it started up and I came to know him by that name. I called him by the name. Whenever I see him in the area or we come in contact I would hail him up, call to him, sometimes a little pump of fist. This was over a time period, a lot of time that I seen him and speak to him in the Martin Drive area even in clubs along West Bay Road. He never said I was off and that’s not my name and not my nickname. He answered to it.”

¶ [27] Cross examination "I was never called to an incident involving Mr. Myles or something similar. He was someone I encountered who was polite to me. He has never been disrespectful to me. In my experience that area was associated not with violence but with frequent reports by the Police. I don’t deem such places in any of these islands as dangerous." [Officer Mendez was asked about another young man, James Anthony Connor. It was suggested to Officer Mendes that he was mistaken about Beenie and that it was Connor who was known as Beenie.] I have not heard of that name. I recall a murder in the parking lot at Mango Tree but I am not sure of the year. I have never met him. Q: You never met Wayne prior to 2016? I can’t give a date when I meet him. He is someone who is known to me very well. In the past we spoke, bumping off fists, he responded and he never said to me Beenie is not his name, not his correct name. He is someone I know, and he knows me very well. When I spoke with him sometimes he would be in the company of other people. My memory/testimony is not vague because my memory is not clear of the circumstances in which I would have seen Mr Myles. In the Martin Drive area most persons don’t call each other by proper names. They use aliases which I came to find out was because they responded and never complained and I have spoken to them. I would say I am like a big brother/father. Whenever I am on duty I do various checks with the youth, elders and everyone in the community around me and the youth tell me who goes by that name. That is how I learned that Mr. Myles goes by that name “Beenie”. I have not heard of any other nickname being used in relation with Mr. Myles. I have never heard of him being referred to as “Jason”. OFFICER ALVAN BOXWELL

¶ [28] Officer Boxwell’s evidence offered an important link in the prosecution case. He was part of the team assigned to recover the data from the exhibit phones EMT 1 and DS/WM1. He described the processes and software that he used to download data from these exhibits. Once that data was downloaded, he passed it to Officer Delaney. His role as he related was “simply to download and transfer the data.” Paragraphs iv – ix of the Agreed Facts encompassed most of the more relevant aspects of Officer Boxwell’s evidence.

¶ [29] Officer Boxwell was cross- examined by counsel for the Defendant and stated, inter alia:

¶ [30] Cross examination: I am not in a position to assist the court with a high level of tech in relation to how the system works. My role is simply to download and transfer information without real knowledge of the technical side of it. I don’t know if Celebrite can change data as opposed to simply replicating it. I do not have any experience number spoofing – copying of SIM cards. Celebrite technology, I am not sure if it can be used to add or replicate numbers. If a SIM is Replicated or copied, I would not be able to discern that from the original in any way." MRS. JOANNE DELANEY

¶ [31] I have categorized Mrs. Delaney’s evidence into relevant categories and related the evidence that she gave in answer to questions raised in cross examination on her evidence in those categories as far as possible.

¶ [32] Mrs. Delaney’s evidence was extensive and formed the real base of the prosecution’s case.

¶ [33] She related that she is employed as the intelligence analyst for the RCIP, and that her role involves communications and data analysis including the analysis of cell phone downloads.

¶ [34] She related that she would usually receive data in different formats from Officer Boxwell, and confirmed that she has a licence for the Cellebrite software described by Officer Boxwell in his evidence, and can receive material in that format i.e. the Celebrite software format as well as PDF or Excel.

¶ [35] She also related her previous experience working as part of police investigations related to prostitution and/or pimping.

¶ [36] The download from the phone seized from Alexander Ebanks. i. Mrs. Delaney stated that she analysed information downloaded from the handset exhibit EMT1. She found a small number of items relating to material of inferred prostitution. This information was in the nature of a WhatsApp communication between the exhibit and another user which she exhibited as JD/14. Ie the communication. She explained that these were communications between the number 322-4470, Alexander Ebanks and *8917, the number of the recipient that received the messages from Ebanks during the communications. Her evidence was that the Name “Beenie” is how that number *8917 was stored within the contacts section of Ebanks phone book on the handset, exhibit EMT/1. There was also another number stored within the contacts section on the handset as “Beenie”, - 546 7296. The communication set out in JD 14 from EMT1 was all the identified communication between Ebanks and 8917. ii. Delaney related that the conversation between Ebanks and 8917, downloaded from the phone for the dates 16th and 17th of September 2015, and another from the 19th of September 2015 are those which the Crown says forms the basis of the offences charged at Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment. iii. In answer to questions from defence counsel Mrs. Delaney related: “The WhatsApp messages on Alexander Ebanks’ handset were not repeated on the handset of Mr Myles. In relation to this handset Celebrite did not have ability. I could not confirm if an S6 was on the list for deletions but the WhatsApp messages recovered were not indicated in software as being [deleted] but multiple images stored on the handset, identified as sent WhatsApp messages, did not feature within any of the recovered messages indicating to me that deleted WhatsApp messages were not recovered." iv. Later she also stated in relation to EMT1: "It did not concern me that these messages had not been recovered. Given that the messages are going back to 2014 on the WhatsApp account, I did not expect them to be present in relation to a criminal enterprise, which are often deleted, a party in those conversations."

¶ [37] In addition to this evidence from Officer Delaney, the following Agreed Facts numbered i. to iii which relate to EMT/1 are relevant.

¶ [38] Downloads from DS/WM/1 i. Mrs. Delaney confirmed that she was aware that a handset was taken from the defendant on the 15th of June 2016 and exhibited as DS/WM/1, a Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge model phone. ii. She confirmed that she had received the partial download from that phone from Mr. Boxwell which had been downloaded in August 2016. She detailed that these were a number of different items including SMS content and images and other media formats. She produced documentation in relation to that download as JD/15 which she described as a subset of the information that she identified that was linked to inferred prostitution activities. iii. Mrs Delaney went on to detail SMS messages between the *8917 handset to various phone numbers which she says was linked to inferred prostitution services. These messages the Crown says are evidence related to the counts on the indictment of *attempts* by the defendant live on the earnings of prostitution: a) Relating to count 4, there was evidence of a conversation on the 5th March 2015 between the 8917 handset and a number ending *26. There were no further messages between the two numbers about that discussion on the handset. b) Relating to Count 5, a conversation with the number ending *37 on the 5th July 2015. The entirety of the conversation was recorded. c) Relating to Count 6 a conversation with a number ending *32 on the 25th July 2015, the entirety of the conversation is recorded and produced. d) Relating to Count 7, the 28th August 2015, a conversation with a number ending *64. Again Ms. Delaney confirmed that she had produced the entirety of the conversation between the 8917 number and *64 on that date. e) Relating to Count 8, the 18th and 19th of September 2015, a further conversation between 8917 and *64. f) On Count 9, a conversation from the 10th of February 2016 was produced between the 8917 and *73. iv. Mrs Delaney went on to state that she was aware that DS/WM/1 was processed again by Cellebrite in Canada at the end of November 2016 and she subsequently received a jump drive which contained a download product with a witness statement and the cell phone itself. She was then able to access WhatsApp material from the handset and to extract photos and messaging that she inferred were relevant to prostitution. She exhibited this information as JD/16. v. She related that the handset DS/WM/1 was associated with the name Jason as that was the user name on the WhatsApp associated with the cell phone. She clarified that with regard to counts 2-9 where there appeared in the exhibited material the words in brackets “Myles”, that that label was her annotation to the user of the SMS messages, that label was not direct from the handset but was her input. vi. For Count 1, from line 70 of the exhibit JD/16 Officer Delaney stated that from the 18th November 2014 the Jason phone sent out a message to a number ending in *51 saying: “If you know of anyone interested in escort services let me know”. There were multiple photos then sent after that message of women posing in under wear and in some swim wear, exposing parts of their bodies. The same message with the same set of images was sent to different numbers ending in *09, *37, *01 and then further, different photos also accompany the original message. vii. Mrs Delaney also identified that in some of the latter photographs there appeared a photograph of Mr. Myles which identification she based on the picture appearing on his Vehicle Licence with the name Wayne Carlos Myles.

¶ [39] Pricing Structures i. Mrs. Delaney related that there appeared to be differences in messages which she grouped as Sections 1-3. These sections she described as follows: a) “Section 1 is in relation to inferred customers and promotion of sexual activity and females for sale. Section 2 detailed inferred sourcing of females for sexual activity for the user and others. Section 3 relates to inferred activity of arrangements for lingerie parties, where partially clothed females in attendance or serving. There was a distinct difference in types of promotions being fide for this section as opposed to Section 1. There is a considerable reduction in pricing sections." ii. Mrs. Delaney also determined that there was a price guide for a variety of services offered by the *8917 number. She derived these from the communications exhibited as JD/16 and JD/16. She created the following chart. DATE REFERENCE PRICE 29.09/14 $300 18/11/14 "Escorts" CIS$400 26/11/14 "Fuckfest" CIS$200 per hour 05/03/15 $250 11/04/15 250 25/07/15 "Sleep over & have sex" $500 30/08/15 "To come in her mouth" $200 "To do everything" $300 11/09/15 "Come to fuck" CIS$400 per hour 19/09/15 "To show up" $400 "To have sex" $400 27/12/15 $200 11/02/16 $400 per hour 28/02/16 "Roster" 200 04/04/16 $300 16/04/16 $250 01/05/16 "Young Pussy" $150 10/05/16 "Pussy" CIS$400 per hour 19/05/16 200 per hour 22/05/16 CIS$400 22/05/16 200 25/03/16 $250 16/05/16 150 iii. From those exhibits she also gave evidence of the references that she found therein from which she inferred that the defendant was in direct control of and supplying female prostitutes to inferred customers. She detailed these as follows: MYLES: "I have another girl that sucks and swallows...... she available now and she is a good massusse at suck dick" MYLES: "You have any customer wanna buy some pussy –200 an hour" MYLES: "You want some young pussy to buy - $150" MYLES: "I have some girls selling you interested" MYLES: "I have a new girl – 250 – She working for me now bro" MYLES: "Genesa say she wants to swallow your cum... .... I should bring. Her now swallow your cum.... ... ... ..... Just to cum in her mouth $200 but to do everything $300" MYLES: "I have another girl that do everything" MYLES: "New freak me an Eddie trying to break her in" MYLES: "You want magma – 200" MYLES: "Hey you want Kimberly today for $250... AL be there in 15 min don’t give her the mone . Give it to me" iv. She was cross examined about the pricing structures that she had identified in her evidence. She related that: "The pricing structure gives a great deal in relation to alleged prices and different services. For example: As low as $150 up to $500 – sleep over and have sex. These were messages going to $25 per hour for topless for private party at Vic’s bar. I inferred that this was less than for services provided for sex and prostitution. The provision of topless bar staff is not akin to prostitution." v. She related examples of a Conversation with a potential customer seeking girls to wear lingerie, initially seeking 3 girls, where the price of 200 each and then 500 discussed between 8917 and the inferred customer for party of their own. "The Pricing structure of $200 each or $500 for 3 was more akin to what is also prostitution services. Where a specific price point does not necessarily denote services on order, I have highlighted special services and details per pricing." vi. She agreed that in some instances there were conversations in relation to parties where she could definitely state if anyone physically undertook those activities at those prices and also that 'Escort services' do not necessarily involve prostitution activities as defined. She stated that messages with descriptions of escorts were included to compare with later chats where escorts provided/quoted as $400. $400 same prices found in other chats "to show up" 'have sex' for p---y' and 'come to f—k'. There was one message for 400 to show up and 400 to have sex. Others related specifically for $400 for more intimate services. vii. She agreed that the word 'pussy' can be a derogatory word in relation to female genitalia only and said that "It is difficult to be sure of interpretation based on [a price of] $400 alone" and stated that she provided the pricing and comparisons in wording to show similarities and differences." She related that she had identified 31 individual females and 15 inferred customers with 15 separate cell phone numbers.

¶ [40] Attribution i. In her evidence Mrs. Delaney identified a number of factors which led to her conclusion that it was the defendant to whom these messages, photos etc. should be attributed. a) User account information derived from the cell phone: The handset DS/WM1 had a user name of Jason Myles. Apart from this the user account associated with the cell phone was of waynemyles.ky@gmail.com. This was also the email linked to the google account on the handset. Also, the user account dj_romeo1404@yahoo.com was associated with the Facebook account on the handset. Delaney identified the defendant’s birthday as 14th April. b) A PDF document recovered from the handset displayed a warehouse receipt/invoice dated 23/3/2015: The defendant’s name appears as consignee with the phone number used on the hand set. A second receipt on that PDF displayed the same details of the defendant’s name and phone number. c) A Western Union receipt copy of which recovered from the handset with the defendant’s name, address and phone number 546 7297. d) A Western union Transfer document: A copy of a receipt was recovered from handset with defendant’s name as sender and his address and phone number appeared. The defendant’s Drivers licence used on this transaction accords with the Driver’s Licence details recovered for the defendant for the DVLS e) MoneyGram Receipt. The defendant’s name and physical address and the telephone number associated given 928 8917 is the same as the handset of DS/WM1 f) A large number of photos were extracted from the handset of the DS/WM1. Mrs. Delaney stated that these appeared to be selfie images 127 images and metadata from file paths on the phone. These images were all selfie images, close up images of a person where it appears that they are taking it themselves, of the defendant. g) Further images (21 images) were actual images on the handset. They all showed the defendant. h) Image file for a receipt from Autohaus Norway. The defendant is named as the consignee with the number 8917 associated with the handset as well as his physical address and email waynemyles.ky@gmail.com. i) The shipment related to a vehicle being imported a BMW 323i. This is the same make of the vehicle registered to the defendant. j) Evidence of a SMS message sent from the handset 8917 stating “this Beenie, when you get chance call me.” k) Various other SMS messages were recovered from the handset, DS/WM1 - 114 messages which all refer to “Jason”, in either the incoming and outgoing messages. l) Messages referring to “Wayne” both incoming and outgoing. 21 such messages were identified. m) Evidence that the user of the handset responds to incoming messages for “Beenie”/Further references to “Beenie” and Vic’s bar. The defendant was employed at Vic’s bar during the period under consideration. n) Evidence of the name Jason being used by the user of 8917. There were incoming and outgoing messages referencing the name Jason. Further references to Jason’s birthday on the 14th of April. The defendant’s birthday is on the 14th of April. ii. Cross Examination a) Mrs. Delaney was subjected to extensive and rigorous cross-examination. She confirmed that a voluminous amount of information was recovered from the cell phone DS/WM/1 and agreed that the WhatsApp messages alone accounted for over 30,000 lines. She agreed that the schedules that she had provided as JD 14 -JD 16 were but a small snapshop, a subset of the entire amount of information recovered. b) She confirmed that there had been disclosure of the full entirety of the cell phone downloads to the defence for their review, stating that she did not specify or identify any particular material contained therein which underlined the Crown’s case. However, she refuted any suggestion that when she went through the data her role was to only find material that implicated guilt. c) She agreed that for some of the images that she had included in her schedules that it was difficult to say when the image had been taken however for others taken directly from the phone she was able to extract both the image itself and file information which would be generated automatically from the software used for the downloads. She agreed that looking at some of that information that she could say that those images were not taken or created by the handset DS/WM/1. d) She described in answer to questions from Counsel for the defendant how she was able to say that the WhatsApp Account which she stated was associated with the defendant had been transferred from another device, where that account had been used prior to the activation of DS/WM/1 in November 2015. "During September 2014 to November 2015 data from the download identified a number of messages sent via this WhatsApp account 8917. Multiple of these messages would include same male I identified as Wayne Myles and often a small female child was included in these messages and metadata available for those messages sent via WhatsApp. Metadata consistently identifies a Galaxy S4. In addition to that to help support the fact that the WhatsApp was from one handset to another handset is in September 2014 a WhatsApp activation code was sent to cell number 928 8917. A further WhatsApp activation code was then sent on 7/12/2015. It was sent to 8917 on the same date the Galaxy S6 Edge was activated. 2 SMS activation codes were sent when verification of WhatsApp is required providing an indication of dates at which WhatsApp activation activity took place. I inferred a download of a WhatsApp application to a new handset." e) In answer to a question posed by Counsel for the defendant Mrs Delaney agreed that it was possible that a Sim card could be contained in one handset with a WA account on another handset. However, she stated that the phone with the SIM card which had the number associated with the WA account was still necessary at the initial setup to receive the WA activation Code to complete the process of acquiring the app, to complete the process on the potential 2nd handset. f) Counsel for the defendant put a number of scenarios to the witness which she answered openly and clearly. She stated that the WA account covered a greater period than the period of activation of DS/WM/1 and stretched from June 2014 to June 2016. She concluded that it was a continuous account during that period because of the common thread of images for that two-year period. "WhatsApp has been utilized on a separate handset prior to 07/12/15 so messages prior to this date took place on a different handset and were possibly stored on the original handset but there is nothing I can analyze to provide information in relation to that. ... There may be another handset that contains deleted messages. The previous handset may or may not contain WhatsApp data that would have been deleted. I cannot say further."

¶ [41] The following Agreed Facts numbered xii – xxi are relevant to this evidence relating to DS/WM/1 and attribution.

¶ [42] **Number spoofing** i. Mrs. Delaney stated that she had experience of number spoofing in which a Sim card is copied in order to duplicate a number on a network. She did not agree that there was evidence of hacking just by dint of the fact that there was a handset associated with the number 8917 for which no IMEI number could be recovered. She stated that as far as she was concerned that there was nothing to show anything out of the ordinary with the activity that she had seen within the instant inquiry. Specifically, in relation to the unknown handset, she stated that she “did not feel it was necessary to make inquiries based on the data obtained, as the consistency of usage during the span of the WA account, the fact that a SIM was not definitively required for a WA account to continue functioning and all of the material that was contained was sufficient” for her purposes to make the conclusions that she did from the data.

¶ [43] **Multiple users of DS/WM/1** i. She was questioned about whether she had identified any other medium from which the handset could have backed up the material on the phone. She stated that: “The only evidence I have in relation to backup material is whereby a download involving a number of images on the handset have been backed up to the google account associated to the email waynemyles.ky@gmail.com. Outside that element, I cannot say where or how backups have taken place”

¶ [44] Mrs. Delaney was also questioned about her findings about the number of users of the handset DS/WM/1. She confirmed that there was only a single SMS message that referenced “Beenie” found on the phone, a message dated the 22nd March 2016. She went on that she did not have any evidence to indicate multiple users of the phone but if multiple users were having use of the phone that it this could be a reason for the message: "This Beenie", as the receiver of that SMS message needed to be told who the author of the message was of the multiple users.

¶ [45] When it was suggested to Mrs. Delaney that the evidence of a large number of selfie pictures on the handset was inconsistent with someone covering up their identity from using the phone she answered: "Each individual is difference and the manner that they deal with cells, media communication on an individual basis. If there is no information at all in relation to a second user, I can't infer a second user due to no information at all [of a second user]."

¶ [46] It was also suggested to her that the lack of identification features that would show a second or multiple users would be consistent with either there being one user or multiple users some of whom deleted [information] to avoid detection of their use] and her response was: "I have no information to show a 2nd user but it would be 2nd user who has removed each and every trace of identification or usage or no 2nd user. I cannot comment on something I have no evidence of."

¶ [47] When Mrs. Delaney was re-examined she stated as follows with regard to number spoofing: "There is no evidence appearing on the handset in this case. If it were to take place especially SMS messages which are networked, if the outgoing messages sent from another number but spoofed to show 8917 number as the sender, the outgoing messages would not feature on handset containing that SIM card or associated to that SIM. There are messages outgoing on SMS. Had they been spoofed they would not feature."

¶ [48] And with regard to the WhatsApp messages from another website or PC Mrs. Delaney stated: "WhatsApp messages from the website or PC. There was no WhatsApp on the handset sent from the website or PC. The incriminating messages were not sent in that way. If messages were sent from webmail or other platform, if sent as part of WhatsApp chat utilizing web interface and subsequently deleted, that chat there may possibly be a memory of that message or image. I did not have any evidence of that."

¶ [49] And relating to evidence of whether females in picture in Cayman or not Mrs. Delaney stated: i. "There is no evidence whether the females in some of the pictures were in Cayman or not. That is not the same for all females in Section 1 of JD/16. I have identified who some of the females are in Sect 1. They have been in the Cayman Islands at times."

¶ [50] And in answer to a question from the court Mrs. Delaney stated: "There is Consistent usage of user I identified as Wayne Myles. Also from the non-criminal content usage of this cell phone and WhatsApp account prior to DS WMI being activated. I don’t see 2nd user of data account. My identification is only of consistent usage throughout the period....I don’t see identifiable usage by anyone else on the accounts on the handset. The lack of those identification features of either user could be consistent with one user or multiple users who have remove identification traces in these communications. I can’t comment on the lack of evidenc removed because it is not there. I would be speculating on what is no there to say otherwise." THE DEFENCE CASE

¶ [51] At the close of the Prosecution case the defendant elected to give evidence on oath.

¶ [52] I remind myself that I must assess the evidence of the defendant in the same objective and dispassionate manner as I would any witness for the prosecution. I remind myself that if I don’t accept the evidence of the defendant that I must still return to the Crown’s case to look for evidence that the crown has proved its case to the requisite standard before I can find the defendant guilty. If the Crown’s evidence does not reach that standard so that I am sure of the defendant’s guilty them my verdict must be not guilty. EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT

¶ [53] The defendant testified that he worked at Vic’s Bar and had done so from late 2011 or 2012. He described that he had a number of duties there.

¶ [54] He agreed that a mobile phone was recovered from him in June 2016 (Exhibit dswm1, no 8917. He stated: “A mobile telephone received from my person on 15/06/2015 was a Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge and referred to as DS/WM1. It contained a SIM card with SIM 928-8917. That handset came to be in my possession. It is accessed by me. It is accessed by me from time to time. It is not a private handset. It is used in a public manner. I do not own the handset or SIM card used in it. My use was limited to receiving calls from friends and family numbers as well as my boss. But the handset also has another function – to sell electronic products, including other handsets, computers and services that go along with those products.” The sale of electronics and other products was not part of my employment. It was something offered to me by a third party. I prefer not to name names. I do not want to put my life or my family’s life at risk. I am Caymanian and I have to live in this jurisdiction. I prefer not to get any further involved with the handset than is necessarily required by this Court. The handset just came to be in my possession as it was loaned to me by the owner. The owner, I prefer not to name names.”

¶ [55] The Defendant stated that he could not recall when the handset first came into his possession although he knew that the number 8917 was being used prior to the activation date of the handset. He stated that he had no knowledge of any dealing with the number prior to having the handset but stated that he accepted that he may have had access to the number previously on the handset. He clarified that he meant that it was possible that the owner of the number gave him access to it to make a phone call.

¶ [56] He went on to state that in November 2014, prior to the activation of the handset, he could not recall if he had had access to the number at that stage. The defendant stated that the messages received from the handset dswm1 which formed the evidence in this case, that he believed that those messages were fabricated and that he did not believe any such transaction or alleged prostitution exists throughout the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands.

¶ [57] He further stated that he was not in a position to speculate why the messages were in the handset neither was he in a position based on looking at the messages to call any female described in the photographs as prostitutes.

¶ [58] With regard to Officer Mendez the salient parts of the defendant’s evidence was: “Despite Mr. Mendez’ lack of memory in this court he is aware of an individual named Anthony James Connor, who was named ‘Beenie’ Further to add, the first time I knew Nakia Mendez was a guy and not a girl was when I was arrested on 15/06/2016. To the best of my recollection prior to that date I had never seen him before. Being a Caymanian it [Martin Drive] is known to me as a violent neighbourhood and I have lost a classmate in that area due to a shooting incident that took place. Officer Mendez gave evidence that for three years from 2009 he was patrolling and saw me in the area. Whilst I respect the Police of the Cayman Islands I believe Officer Mendez’ accusations of me are biased and I believe he had an ulterior motive. I don’t know the motive and he could have chosen any topic to associate me with but that neighbourhood does not fit the character of Wayne Carlos Myles.”

¶ [59] The Defendant stated categorically: “To my knowledge I have never been associated with the name “Beene”. I agree and accept people can call me whatever they choose but my name has always been Wayne Carlos Myles. I cannot stop someone for calling me [what] name they choose. I prefer to be called by my birth name.”

¶ [60] Regarding “Jason” the defendant said: “I have no knowledge of that name being associated with that device.”

¶ [61] The Defendant went on to state, in relation to usage of *8917: "Most certainly it is not my telephone number. I do not know who the number belongs to. If at some point I utilized that number for a bill or statement or receipt it would merely be in the context that I had to give a number at the time that I utilized the number. I may have had access to that telephone no at some point in time but I cannot say where, what, why or how." "To my knowledge it was accessed by others. At this point I cannot recall specifics. The phone had a PayPal account on it as well as an EBay account and all sorts of people from all walks of life would access the phone on a daily basis for all sorts of reasons. I would not name names given the nature of the case even if I could recall because I would not want to put my life or my family’s life at risk. While 8917 was accessible by me to the best of my knowledge I did not make a payment towards the phone or if someone made a payment I cannot recall who made what payment at what time. I cannot recall how the 8917 number was funded. I cannot recall if it was a contract or pay-as-as-you-go situation."

¶ [62] In relation to Exhibit EMT 1 - The WhatsApp messages between 16th to 17th September 2015 – the Defendant said: "Whilst I am not at liberty to say who is the owner of 8917 - given what I know of the circumstances surrounding 8917 - I believe these messages and messages around that period were as a result of number spoofing. I don’t accept Joanne Delaney’ evidence of number spoofing as it is clear to me that she is not truly capable of understanding what a spoofed phone would do to the network."

¶ [63] The defendant went on to say that spoofing and ghosting of phones was outside of his capability of understanding although he had physically seen equipment needed to embark on such a task. However he stated that he believed that the messages reflected on EMT1 at no time came from any handset that he had in his possession. The Defendant stated: "I don’t recall seeing these previously. I don’t know who was sending messages from the 8917 account. I was not sending those messages."

¶ [64] When he was asked about the WhatsApp and SMS messages which formed the basis of the counts on the indictment counts 2-9 the defendant’s response was in essence that he had no knowledge of messages or whether they are true or fabricated. He said that he had "never seen this prior to disclosure and have no idea of what the contents of the messages are."

¶ [65] The defendant reiterated: "I have seen the disclosure and read the messages. My answer I gave previously stands for all messages throughout the disclosure. I have no idea who is sending or receiving. No knowledge of the messages. I have never received a dollar from anyone in respect of aiding prostitution. I stated I never received money for aiding or assisting prostitution. I had no control or influence over anyone I know to be a prostitute and I would add I do not know any prostitutes or any women that may be suggested to be involved in prostitution within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands." Cross examination

¶ [66] The defendant denied knowing any of the females whose pictures appeared in the downloads from the phones and in JD16. He stated that he did not set up the handset and that he believed it was a combination of technical individuals whom "I believed had experience in hacking systems may have not only transferred images from another handset but also set up the Gmail and WhatsApp accounts from which images taken."

¶ [67] He stated that he had never purchased a phone and had not had one prior to 2009 but he has had access to phones. He stated that he was oblivious to the contents of the phone which formed the basis of the charges before the court and that he could give an explanation as to who the handset belongs to but he was in fear of his life and of his family’s life if he was to disclose the owner at this stage. He refuted counsel for the prosecution’s suggestion that he was using this suggestion of fear to distance himself from the handset.

¶ [68] The Defendant could not say how long he had had the handset up to June 2016 when it was seized by the police. When asked about WhatsApp messages that were sent by Beenie very close to that time, he stated "I have not thought who used the phone and WhatsApp on the date it was taken from me. I have no knowledge and I prefer not to speculate."

¶ [69] When asked specifically if he had not seen the WhatsApp messages on the phone while it was in his possession, the defendant maintained his answer that he had no knowledge and he refused to speculate.

¶ [70] The Defendant admitted that waynemyles.ky@gmail.com was one of his email addresses but not dj_romeo1404@gmail.com. He stated that the latter email was only associated with a business account to which he did not have access and which had been inactive since 2008. When he was questioned about his use of the latter email address on his DVDL application form, he admitted that he did so but that it was not existing and did not work at that time. He stated: "...generally speaking I would not be expecting licence Department to be emailing me after I received the licence."

¶ [71] However, he agreed that he had used his proper address on the DVDL form. He also agreed the he had previously had use of the number 546-7296 which appeared on the DVDL form and that this number was also used on three occasions to contact the police where the person calling had identified himself as Wayne Myles. The *7296 number was also used on Western Union Receipt form. He stated however that "I was using and had access and a number of times I used the number, I would not go so far as to say the number was mine."

¶ [72] With regard to the name Beenie, the defendant stated that it could be more than one person called Beenie in reference to the numbers attributed to that name on the EMT/1 handset as well as messages on the DS/WM/1 handset which referred to that name. He stated that he did not know who it was referring to and that he would not want to speculate on the message. He categorically denied that he was ever called "Beenie".

¶ [73] The defendant did not accept that the exhibited messages in which the name "Wayne" referred to were sent by him. He stated that the messages at pages 142-143 of the Trial bundle could be messages which someone had "written and sent out pretending to be me" or it was sent on his behalf.

¶ [74] In answer to a question from Crown Counsel whether there was any message in any of the Crown's bundle that he was prepared to accept the defendant stated: "There are no messages in this trial bundle that I have any knowledge of being a part of. I think it would be a little bit that I don't remember and a little bit that I didn't sent them. I have no knowledge."

¶ [75] The defendant accepted that his birthday was on the 14th of April but stated that he did not know who the messages referred to at Page 112 Line 87 could refer to, even when confronted with the fact that the person was also connected to Vic's Bar where the defendant was employed during this time.

¶ [76] With regard to the evidence of JD 14-16, the defendant stated that he had no knowledge of any of the messages. He was questioned about messages which the Crown says referred to different rates for services. Again the defendant denied having any knowledge about any of those matters. When asked about who would have had access to the handset on the many occasions when messages sent from the handset were sent very late at night and very early in the morning, the defendant’s answer was with regard to the messages from 2014, that he could not recall having the handset on those dates or what it was being used for and closer to 2016, he had no knowledge and could not speculate on something he did not know.

¶ [77] The defendant was asked if he did not see incoming messages on the handset requesting whether a girl available or if he did not think that someone was using the phone for sex and money. He repeated that he had no knowledge of any prostitution activities in the Cayman Islands. He stated: “the first time I saw WhatsApp messages to the best of my knowledge was on the 30-31st March 2017, when the large data set was disclosed to me at Northward” and that he had now knowledge before that of any of the messages in the Crown’s bundle.

¶ [78] In re-examination he agreed that he had used the email address waynemyles.ky@gmail.com -- however he stated that at the time that he used that address when he was incorporating the company, he did not actually have access to the account and he did not know who usually used it or who had set up the account.

¶ [79] He stated that he did not read any messages that were “going to prostitution” because he “was not in the habit of reading messages in the phone that belonged to other people”. He went on: “...many people from all walks of life had access on a daily basis for a number of reasons. It was not a private device for 1 person to say it was mine. It was accessible to the public on any given date at any given time....On the times and dates of the messages referred to in the indictment, I have no knowledge who was operating the phone at that time and if there was a specific time I could refer to I choose not to given the nature of the case and due to the fact that I would not put my life or family’s life at risk."

¶ [80] He reiterated that he would prefer not to name the persons who had access to the phone as he would not want to put lives at risk.

¶ [81] When questioned as to why the evidence of Mrs. Delaney was not challenged on the matter of other persons having access to the phone, the defendant’s evidence was: "on the material dates there were other selfie images on the phone but I chose not to refer to those because of the nature of the case. I chose not to disclose those other individuals because of the nature of the case." COURT’S CONCLUSIONS

¶ [82] It was difficult for this court to accept Mr. Myles’ account.

¶ [83] He made a bald assertion at the beginning of his evidence that he would prefer not to name names. He said, "I do not want to put my life or my family’s life at risk. I am Caymanian and I have to live in this jurisdiction. I prefer not to get any further involved with the handset than is necessarily required by this Court." He did not give any further details to bolster this assertion.

¶ [84] It is noteworthy that Mr. Myles did not say to the Court that he had been threatened in any way. He instead asserted that he had chosen not to provide details of other users or persons who purchased or operated the phone. Therefore, while he appeared to suggest that he did have evidence which could contradict the evidence of Mrs. Delaney, he chose not to produce that evidence to the court or to refer to it at all. A defendant facing the very serious crimes for which the defendant is before the court would, to this Court’s mind, produce evidence which could go to contradict the Crown’s evidence and/or raise reasonable doubt in the court’s mind if it were available. The defendant has offered an incomplete and implausible explanation as to why he would not give a full account of all he knew of persons that he says may be involved in this matter.

¶ [85] He stated his lack of experience with a phone but seemed to have intimate knowledge of concepts of spoofing and ghosting and, from his evidence, may have known or associated with persons who were involved in such activities. However, he did not offer any detail to raise doubt on the clear evidence of the Crown’s analyst that upon her examination of the phone there was nothing to show anything out of the ordinary, no evidence of spoofing or ghosting or any other activity which could have led her to conclude that there was interference with or another user of the phone.

¶ [86] Mr. Myles’ evidence of persons unknown using the *8917 handset is not supported by any evidence in this case. To the contrary, the Crown’s evidence to support the fact of one user of the phone is credible and uncontroverted.

¶ [87] The defendant’s evidence that he did not view the various messages ‘going to prostitution’ is implausible. It is difficult to accept the defendant’s evidence that he would have ignored the many messages that would, on the Crown’s case, have been displayed on the phone. He appeared to contradict himself somewhat in his evidence when he stated that he did not read any messages that were “going to prostitution” because he “was not in the habit of reading messages in the phone that belonged to other people”. This response raises the question of how would he know that the messages belonged to other people if he had not seen them himself.

¶ [88] I cannot convict the defendant because I do not believe his account. I must go back to consider the prosecution case in its entirety in order to determine whether I am satisfied of the elements of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶ [89] I remind myself that a defendant may lie for different reasons not necessarily because he is guilty of the offences charged. LUCAS DIRECTION

¶ [90] I am reminded of the warning that I would give to the jury, and, in this case, to myself, pursuant to \( R v.\ Lucas^6 \), and I treat this evidence with great care. THE LAW

¶ [91] Section 139 of the Penal Code states as follows: "139. (1) Every male person who - (a) knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution; or (b) in any public place persistently solicits or importunes for immoral purposes, commits an offence. (2) Where a male person is proved to live with or to be habitually in the company of a prostitute or is proved to have exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution with another person, or generally, he shall, unless he shall satisfy the court to the contrary, be deemed to be knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution." 6 [1981] Q.B. 720

¶ [92] In the instant case the Crown has not specifically named a prostitute upon whose earnings the defendant was living. However, there is no issue that the manner in which the offence has been charged is allowable within s.139 (1).

¶ [93] In order to prove the offences on the indictment, the Crown’s evidence must satisfy me that persons were engaging in prostitution, that prostitution was occurring during the period under consideration. The Crown does not have to prove that the prostitute in question is a common prostitute but must show by evidence that the person whom they allege is engaged in prostitution, has on at least one occasion made a contract for sexual activity.

¶ [94] The Crown’s case to support prostitution comes from evidence of discussions with females about prices they would accept for sexual activity and the offering of females for sexual activity from both of which they ask this court to infer that such persons were prostitutes.

¶ [95] The Crown’s evidence is directed to the third limb of the deeming provision in s.139 (2). The Crown must also prove that this defendant exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of prostitutes in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling their prostitution with another person, or generally, in order to establish that he was knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution.

¶ [96] If such is proved, the onus shifts to the defendant to satisfy the court to the contrary, that he was not knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution.

¶ [97] The prosecution on this indictment for Counts 1, 2, 10 and 11, rely on the various messages/conversations from a cell phone number 8917 which they say is attributed to this defendant as evidence of the defendant’s exercise of control, direction or influence for these offences charged and to give context to the entire criminal enterprise which they allege was being conducted by the defendant.

¶ [98] Counts 2 and 3 relate to messages displayed on the device EMT1.

¶ [99] For each of these counts on the specific dates stated in each of the particulars, the Crown must prove that that X was a prostitute at the time of the commission of the offence and that the defendant attempted to exercise control, direction or influence on her movements in such a way as to show that he was aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution with another person.

¶ [100] The Crown must prove that the defendant did something that was more than merely preparatory to control or influence the movements of a prostitute and that the act(s) had the effect of aiding abetting or compelling her prostitution with another person.

¶ [101] I remind myself that I must look to see whether the evidence presented by the Crown proves all the elements of each individual offence to the requisite standard before I can find the defendant guilty of the offences charged on the indictment. I remind myself that in the usual case that the defendant has nothing to prove. However in this case, if I find that the Crown has proved that the defendant exercised or attempted to exercise control, direction or influence over the movement of a prostitute, I also remind myself that the section does then place a reverse burden on the defendant to satisfy the court to the contrary, such burden being on a balance of probabilities.

¶ [102] The defence submitted to the court that the court could not be satisfied to the requisite standard in order to find the defendant guilty on the counts on the indictment for a number of reasons. Specifically, the defence state that with regard to counts 4-9 of the indictment that these messages stand alone, without context, and that the messages upon which the Crown rely to found those counts were inherently vague, that they could relate to anything. The question for the court was whether the court could be satisfied that the act of prostitution was put into action sufficient to sustain the counts of attempt. Counsel for the defendant pointed to the lack of evidence of protagonist or prostitutes to set that context. I have considered these submissions.

¶ [103] Mrs Delaney’s evidence was not contradicted in any material way. She maintained her evidence and was able to offer plausible reasons for her conclusions and to answer the questions put to her by counsel for the defendant in a manner and with explanations consistent with her evidence. I do not find that there were any material inconsistencies in her evidence or between her evidence and that of the other prosecution witnesses.

¶ [104] I am satisfied on the Crown’s evidence that someone was engaged in the provision of prostitution services between 18th November 2014 and up to September 2015.

¶ [105] Officer Mendez was a credible witness. I believe his evidence that he knew the defendant as Beenie and that he had heard other persons refer to him and call him by that name. It was suggested to him that his memory may be somewhat faulty as to the circumstances in which he first learnt/heard the defendant being referred to as Beenie. The witness denied this. However, it was never suggested to the officer that there was any reason that he would fabricate this evidence of his knowing the defendant by this name. He was insistent that he knows the defendant, he outlined how he came to know the defendant and I accept his evidence.

¶ [106] I am satisfied and find as a fact that the defendant was known by the Nickname “Beenie.”

¶ [107] I am satisfied and find as a fact the defendant was the same person named as “Beenie” and “Jason” as they appear from the relevant messages, WhatsApp and SMS which form the basis of the Counts on the indictment and that the defendant was the person “Beenie” and Jason who used the handset *8917. I am satisfied so that I am sure that the defendant was the main or only user of that handset during the relevant period.

¶ [108] Having made those findings I must go on to consider with regard to the specific counts on the indictment whether the prosecution have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was living or attempting to live on the earnings of prostitution on the dates specified for each count. If I so find, I must go on to consider whether the defendant has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he was not knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution on those dates.

¶ [109] Count 1: Living on the earnings of Prostitution i. Between the 18th November 2014 and 26th November 2014. Pgs. 70 – 92. From the 18th November 2014 the Jason phone sent out a message to a number ending in *51 saying: “If you know of anyone interested in escort services let me know”. There were multiple photos then sent after that message of women posing in under wear and in some swim wear, exposing parts of their bodies. The same message with the same set of images was sent to different numbers ending in *09, *37, *01 and then further, different photos also accompany the original message. The Crown’s case is that the sending out to various persons with different numbers and the nature of the conversations, how much for which girl, that accompany the pictures show that the defendant was engaged in providing prostitution services and living on the earnings of prostitutes during this period, that this is clear evidence of numerous girls seeking and supplying prostitution services. ii. I have reviewed the conversations and pictures which go to Count 1. I find that the Crown has satisfied me to the requisite standard that the defendant was exercising control over the movements of persons who were prostitutes, being engaged in the provision of sexual services for money. iii. The Defendant is Guilty on Count 1.

¶ [110] Count 2: Living on the Earnings of Prostitution i. Here the Crown relies on the conversation downloaded from the handset EMT1. The conversation was not long and related Ebanks and the 8917 number where Ebanks first states that the 8917 user has not linked him back, to which Beenie states that it was tonight for sure. ii. The conversation then follows: FROM TO WHATSAPP CONTENT EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Where she live 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224471 Town 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224472 Al get her EBANKS 3224473 9288917 Beenie Good 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224474 And when you dun drop her to me EBANKS 3224475 9288917 Beenie Sounds good 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224476 She say 200 if you want her swallow EBANKS 3224477 9288917 Beenie She lucky she don't only get 100 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224478 😊😊😊 EBANKS 3224479 9288917 Beenie I wouldn't do that lol 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224480 👍 EBANKS 3224481 9288917 Beenie $150 whole package deal lol 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224482 Al ask EBANKS 3224483 9288917 Beenie Good friend discount 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224484 Everything for 200 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224485 And remember you nah paying so stop being cheap 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224486 😊😊😊 EBANKS 3224487 9288917 Beenie That's true too 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224488 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224489 Everything is perfect EBANKS 3224490 9288917 Beenie I never made 200 profit in 30min before 😊 EBANKS 3224491 9288917 Beenie Lol cool 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224492 She agreed to everything 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224493 Youll lsat more than that 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224494 Pop a pill 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224495 😊😊😊 EBANKS 3224496 9288917 Beenie I take a quick fuck not being greedy 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224497 Take you time enjoy it EBANKS 3224498 9288917 Beenie She takes them? 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224499 Weed EBANKS 3224500 9288917 Beenie Yo 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224501 Show time EBANKS 3224502 9288917 Beenie 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224503 Am here at t I 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224504 EBANKS 3224505 9288917 Beenie I'm seen a friend I'll be there soon EBANKS 3224506 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224507 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224508 9288917 Beenie Where are you EBANKS 3224509 9288917 Beenie 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224510 Lobby EBANKS 3224511 9288917 Beenie Cool 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224512 She say she cant fuck for week 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224513 Good job EBANKS 3224514 9288917 Beenie Had to get my money's worth lol 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224515 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224516 Pussy good iii. Beenie has provided the ‘girl’, he has arranged for her to be dropped off and arrangements made for her to be picked up after the transaction. It is clear that there was a cost associated with the service that the girl was to provide. There is haggling over the price, 150 whole package deal and 200 for everything. When Ebanks says “I take a quick fuck not being greedy,” the nature of the service is established. The concluding lines of the conversation: "She say she can't fuck for a week- pussy good.", solidify this view. iv. I have no doubt that this was a transaction related to the provision of sexual services. Beenie arranged for the girl to provide the service and I am satisfied that the defendant exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of prostitutes in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling their prostitution with another person, or generally, in order to establish that he was knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution. v. I find the Defendant Guilty on Count 2.

¶ [111] Count 3: i. This count relates to an attempt to provide prostitution services to the same person Ebanks. ii. The Crown says that the attempt by the defendant is evidenced by the conversation that appears at lines 259 – 306 of JD14. In this conversation, Ebanks seeks to find out whether there is anything new and he clarifies that he "was talking about girls". Beenie tries to set up a meeting with Ebanks and the girl. He describes her and when he relates at lines 280-285 what the girl can do, it is then that Ebanks agrees to meet her. The nature of the proposed encounter can be inferred from this conversation. It is also clear that Beenie is again orchestrating the meeting. Payment for services are confirmed at lines 291 – 295 and it is also apparent that Beenie has made efforts to bring the girl and Ebanks together but is unable to because "this girl had plans”. He says “am going home” indicating that he had travelled to a location to further these efforts. EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Anything new? 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 Bro he's fucked 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 We all need help him with a good lawyer and prey EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie I was talking about girls btw EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Lol 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 Oh come to ultra EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Good lawyer and peer 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 I have one EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Let me see her 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 Just come 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 😊😊👍 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 You free now 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 No need to hyde your face EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Come on let me see her EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Don't like blind dates 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 She doesn't want to send pictures EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Age 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 But she nice 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 Carol 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 She works here 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 I think 22 EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie I don't know her 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 No 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 We have fuck a few times pussy clean 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 And she can suck good EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie I coming cross EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Check me out side EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Am outside EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Chh I just left running by he old man quick 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 Fuck sorry I was talking EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie I come bj EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie How much for her 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 I think $150 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 She is sold 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 Solid EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Cool I coming cross soon 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 Ok 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 I hear 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 Coming EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Yeah 3 min 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 Ok 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 Place empty 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 Is that you outside EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie U move yet 9288917 Beenie EBANKS 3224470 No bro this girl had plans am going home EBANKS 3224470 9288917 Beenie Cool a next night iii. I am satisfied so that I am sure that this was a transaction related to the provision of sexual services. Beenie arranged for the girl to provide the service and I am satisfied that the defendant attempted to exercise control, direction or influence over her movements of prostitutes and although the transaction was not completed that he had in this instance done something that was more than merely preparatory to control or influence the movements of a prostitute and that the act/s had the effect of aiding abetting or compelling her prostitution with another person. iv. I find the Defendant Guilty on Count 3.

¶ [112] Count 4: i. This count relates to a conversation at lines 7-11 of JD15. The text of the conversation was as follows: Sender Recipient Date Time Type Text 7 *****26 9288917 (MYLES) 05/03/15 15:33:37 Inc - SMS Hey can I ask you something? he talk u he will give me 250 dollar. because he ask me what u talk me 8 9288917 (MYLES) *****26 05/03/15 15:35:06 Out - SMS It’s 250 just make sure he gives you don’t do nothing unless you get the money 9 *****26 9288917 (MYLES) 05/03/15 15:35:25 Inc - SMS but u tell him he hace to give me? 10 9288917 (MYLES) *****26 05/03/15 15:36:53 Out - SMS Yes and you tell him to give you 250 11 *****26 9288917 (MYLES) 05/03/15 15:36:55 Inc - SMS ok ii. Mindful of the required elements of the offence, on the evidence led by the Crown I am not satisfied that the Crown has satisfied this count to the required standard, beyond a reasonable doubt. iii. The Crown has submitted that the court must infer from this conversation an attempt by the Defendant to control the movement of a prostitute. However, from the crown’s own evidence it is not in dispute that the defendant offered other services which the Crown agree do not amount to prostitution. In this instance based on the amount that is being offered it is not readily apparent what the monies were being paid for. Another inference can be drawn on the evidence that the conversation may relate to some other service. iv. There is insufficient evidence related to this date from which I can say that the only reasonable conclusion was that was has been discussed or arranged related to prostitution. v. On Count 4 the defendant is Not Guilty.

¶ [113] Count 5: i. This Count relates to a conversation at lines 14 – 22 of JD 15. The text of this conversation is as follows: 14 *****37 9288917 (MYLES) 05/07/15 02:00:27 Inc - SMS You don’t do girls as well do you? 15 9288917 (MYLES) *****37 05/07/15 06:40:19 Out - SMS Yes 16 9288917 (MYLES) *****37 05/07/15 16:12:26 Out - SMS How many you need and when 17 *****37 9288917 (MYLES) 05/07/15 18:16:31 Inc - SMS No plan yet. just wondered if possible. Cheers 18 9288917 (MYLES) *****37 05/07/15 18:21:30 Out - SMS Ok 19 *****37 9288917 (MYLES) 05/07/15 19:39:48 Inc - SMS Any pics? Cost? 20 9288917 (MYLES) *****37 05/07/15 19:40:55 Out - SMS You have whats app and if you dont mind we can have a drink with you now 21 9288917 (MYLES) *****37 05/07/15 19:40:57 Out - SMS Lol 22 *****37 9288917 (MYLES) 05/07/15 19:43:15 Inc - SMS Ha. Not for tonight man, poss next weekend. Just wanted to know they are cool. ii. I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this conversation relates to sexual activity with a prostitute and that the defendant was seeking to control the movements of a prostitute sufficient for the elements of this offence. Again, I find that any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the defendant. iii. On Count 5 the defendant is not guilty.

¶ [114] Count 6: i. This Count relates to a conversation at lines 23 – 42 of JD 15. The text of this conversation is as follows: 9288917 (MYLES) 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 20:49:16 Out - SMS Yup 24 9288917 (MYLES) *****37 25/07/15 20:53:07 Out - SMS Anna*****63 25 *****32 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 21:01:42 Inc - SMS I missed call from 13455255532 at 21:01 Sat, 25 Jul 2015. 26 *****32 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 21:06:00 Inc - SMS Thanks bro, are you near? If so can you drop by? No problem if not. 27 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 21:07:05 Out - SMS Yes give me 20minutes 28 *****32 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 21:07:09 Inc - SMS Cool. 29 *****32 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 21:52:55 Inc - SMS All good? 30 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 23:10:37 Out - SMS Yup 31 *****32 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 23:13:43 Inc - SMS Plus one? 32 *****32 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 23:32:31 Inc - SMS j, what is the deal with the other one? 33 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 23:33:47 Out - SMS She is avaliable 34 *****32 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 23:34:53 Inc - SMS Cost? 35 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 23:35:55 Out - SMS $500 to hang out sleep over and have sex 36 *****32 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 23:39:47 Inc - SMS I need to ask a big favour and get some cash with my card, I pay day 30 buck? Or I can get tomorrow. She cool eh? 37 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 23:44:24 Out - SMS Yup 38 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 23:44:35 Out - SMS See you in 30 minutes 39 *****32 9288917 (MYLES) 25/07/15 23:44:41 Inc - SMS Thanks man. 40 *****32 9288917 (MYLES) 26/07/15 00:09:02 Inc - SMS I missed call from 13455255532 at 00:09 Sunt, 26 Jul 2015. 41 *****32 9288917 (MYLES) 26/07/15 00:10:12 Inc - SMS Still good? 42 *****32 9288917 (MYLES) 26/07/15 00:31:22 Inc - SMS Hey man all cool but let me know if it’s off. Cheers, ii. It is clear that the conversation relates to sexual activity with a prostitute and that the defendant was seeking to control the movements of a prostitute sufficient for the elements of this offence. Myles, *8917, is attempting to make a deal to have a girl available to hang out, sleepover and have sex. It is not clear however whether that the transaction was completed, whether sexual activity took place. However the evidence is sufficient to support an attempt. iii. I find the Defendant Guilty on Count 6.

¶ [115] Count 7: i. This Count relates to a conversation at lines 43-60 of JD 15. The text of this conversation is as follows: 43 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 28/08/15 15:39:07 Inc - SMS May need 6, got 250, you around? 44 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 28/08/15 15:40:09 Out - SMS Yes 45 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 28/08/15 15:40:10 Out - SMS Now 46 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 28/08/15 15:44:33 Out - SMS Meet ala cabab 47 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 28/08/15 15:44:51 Inc - SMS Half an hour 48 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 28/08/15 15:45:26 Out - SMS Ok 49 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 28/08/15 15:47:33 Out - SMS Lets meet at 5 o clock then 50 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 28/08/15 15:48:11 Inc - SMS 430 better, bet the Effing traffic 51 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 28/08/15 15:48:44 Out - SMS Ok 52 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 28/08/15 16:28:28 Inc - SMS Here 53 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 28/08/15 16:28:58 Out - SMS 15 minutes am in traffic 54 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 28/08/15 16:29:18 Inc - SMS Ok, meet lone star then 55 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 28/08/15 16:29:35 Out - SMS Ok 56 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 28/08/15 16:30:07 Out - SMS Can I bring one girl for you to meet 57 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 28/08/15 16:31:07 Inc - SMS No thanks buddy, maybe next summer. 58 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 28/08/15 16:36:19 Out - SMS Ok am by the car 59 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 28/08/15 16:37:53 Inc - SMS Thanks mate, nice girl, have a good weekend 60 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 28/08/15 16:38:35 Out - SMS You two she is available any time ii. I am not satisfied to the requisite standard that this conversation relates to sexual activity with a prostitute and that the defendant was seeking to control the movements of a prostitute sufficient for the elements of this offence. There is an ambiguity as to what the transaction related to. The benefit of that doubt must be resolved in the defendant’s favour. iii. I find the Defendant Not Guilty on Count 7.

¶ [116] Count 8: i. This Count relates to a conversation at lines 61-75 of JD 15. The text of this conversation is as follows: 61 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 18/09/15 22:33:55 Inc - SMS Got 3 girls for a couple of hour? Including the one you intro me to the other day? 62 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 18/09/15 22:59:26 Inc - SMS Possible? 63 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 18/09/15 23:09:17 Inc - SMS Dude, we good? We have money………! 64 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 18/09/15 23:21:15 Out - SMS Am working on it 65 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 18/09/15 23:23:27 Inc - SMS Cool 66 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 18/09/15 23:28:17 Inc - SMS 1230 is the cut off mate 67 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 19/09/15 00:13:54 Inc - SMS Lul 68 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 19/09/15 00:18:09 Inc - SMS Maybe I am? 69 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 19/09/15 00:19:13 Out - SMS Yes 70 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 19/09/15 01:28:19 Inc - SMS Any chance? 71 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 19/09/15 01:29:00 Out - SMS Nope not till later like 3 I only can get one now 72 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 19/09/15 01:35:25 Inc - SMS How much? is she nice? 73 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 19/09/15 01:36:33 Out - SMS $400 to show up and $400 for sex 74 9288917 (MYLES) *****64 19/09/15 01:36:48 Out - SMS Yes shes nice 75 *****64 9288917 (MYLES) 19/09/15 01:40:19 Inc - SMS Sorry buddy, the moment has gone. Next time we’ll plan in advance. ii. I am satisfied so that I feel sure that the defendant attempted to arrange for a girl to have sex. The nature of the transaction is clear as well as the fact that there would be a payment for such a transaction. I am satisfied to the requisite standard that this conversation relates to sexual activity with a prostitute and that the defendant was seeking to control the movements of a prostitute sufficient for the elements of this offence. iii. The defendant is Guilty on Count 8.

¶ [117] Count 9: i. This Count relates to a conversation at lines 76-83 of JD 15. The text of this conversation is as follows: 76 *****73 9288917 (MYLES) 10/02/16 23:53:18 Inc - SMS Jason my neighbout Art at Oceanside said I can order from you. Can you send me pics? Thanks Khy 77 9288917 (MYLES) *****73 10/02/16 23:54:41 Out - SMS What am lost !!!! Pics? 78 *****73 9288917 (MYLES) 10/02/16 23:59:33 Inc - SMS You know big American Art from Oceanside plantation? 79 9288917 (MYLES) *****73 11/02/16 00:00:09 Out - SMS Oh yes $200 80 9288917 (MYLES) *****73 11/02/16 00:00:16 Out - SMS 30 min 81 9288917 (MYLES) *****73 11/02/16 00:00:46 Out - SMS If your talking girl $400 an hour 82 *****73 9288917 (MYLES) 11/02/16 00:01:20 Inc - SMS Wow that’s a lot. Do you have pics? 83 9288917 (MYLES) *****73 11/02/16 00:02:15 Out - SMS Yes send me a what’s app message and I’ll send pics ii. I am not satisfied to the requisite standard that this conversation relates to the provision of sexual services or sexual activity with a prostitute or that the defendant was seeking to control the movements of a prostitute sufficient for the elements of this offence. I am not satisfied that what is related in the conversation was more than merely preparatory sufficient to support the count of attempting to live on the earnings of prostitution. Any doubt must be resolved in favour of the defendant. iii. The defendant is Not Guilty on Count 9.

¶ [118] Count 10: i. This Count relates to a conversation during the period on or about 16th January 2015, at JD16, Section 2 lines 189 – 196. 189 9288917"jason" *****86 16/01/15 10:17:11 You make any sales yet 190 *****86 9288917"jason" 16/01/15 10:17:29 No waiting on you 191 9288917"jason" *****86 16/01/15 10:17:36 Ok 192 *****86 9288917"jason" 16/01/15 10:17:54 We not get nobody yet 193 9288917"jason" *****86 16/01/15 10:17:58 I have a full day for you 194 9288917"jason" *****86 16/01/15 10:18:15 WA room number 195 *****86 9288917"jason" 16/01/15 10:21:46 5105 nobody else must kno 196 9288917"jason" *****86 16/01/15 10:23:46 Got it load an clear ii. The Crown seeks to have the court infer that this conversation shows the level of control that Jason exercised over women who acted as prostitutes. I am not satisfied from this conversation that the Crown have satisfied me to the requisite standard to establish that the defendant was living on the earnings of prostitution. There is nothing in the conversation to suggest the nature of the sales, or what service was being provided. This is against the background as set on the Crown’s evidence that the defendant was known to have been engaged in the provision of other services involving women such as topless dancers. On the interpretation as advanced by the Crown in this case, an indication as to price could suggest the nature of the service to be provided using the pricing structures that Officer Delaney has provided in evidence. However, without such evidence to support this count and without further context there is some doubt in this court’s mind. iii. I find the defendant not guilty on count 10.

¶ [119] Count 11: i. This Count relates to the period on or about 11th and 12th September 2015. These are conversations and pictures from JD 16 lines 428 to 508. Line Sender Recipient Date/Time Message Pictures 428 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 18:18:19 Rich friend in town 429 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 18:18:25 Wants one two girls tonight 430 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 18:18:27 What's good 431 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 18:18:42 Ok 432 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 18:18:47 I have them 433 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 18:18:53 Let me see 434 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 18:18:55 $400 an hour 435 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 18:18:57 So I can show him 436 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 18:18:59 And price 437 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 18:19:01 Kk 438 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 18:21:53 [IMAGE] IMG-20150911-WA0004.jpg 439 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 18:21:53 [IMAGE] IMG-20150911-WA0006.jpg 440 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 18:21:53 [IMAGE] IMG-20150911-WA0007.jpg 441 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 18:21:53 [IMAGE] IMG-20150911-WA0008.jpg 442 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 18:21:53 [IMAGE] IMG-20150911-WA0009.jpg 443 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 18:21:53 [IMAGE] IMG-20150911-WA0005.jpg 444 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 18:33:48 Kk 445 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 18:33:52 Soon update you 446 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 18:34:00 447 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 21:03:58 Yo 448 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:40:44 Yo 449 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:40:45 Ready 450 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:40:48 For you 451 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:40:58 1.5 hrs 452 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:41:00 400 453 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:41:03 Cash ready 454 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:41:08 Incoming call 455 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:41:37 Yo 456 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:42:11 Incoming call 457 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:42:22 Yo 458 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:42:24 Yo 459 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:42:26 Yo 460 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:42:29 Yi 461 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:42:39 Yo 462 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 23:45:49 Ok 463 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 23:47:40 Were 464 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:47:45 What can you deliver we waiting 465 9288917"jason" ****01 Ian 11/09/15 23:47:55 Were are you 466 ****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:48:20 "It's the condominium complex across from the cricket pitch in town, I'll give you the name, I'm on my way there, I'll be there 3 to 4 minutes PTT-20150911-WA0012-amr 467 9288917"jason" *****01 Ian 11/09/15 23:49:08 If it's an hour an half I need extra Transcribed: "Bro hold up, the guy wants to know if he can do fucking 2 hours for 400 bucks, straight up, he's got cash in hand, he like yeah, 1.5, he's being weird man, you just need to tell me what's up. 400 bucks cash in hand, location coming in 2 minutes, need to know if that's good" 468 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:49:23 PTT-20150911-WA0013-amr 469 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:50:01 Transcribed: "Don't let me down brother, this guy is here like, come on" PTT-20150911-WA0014-amr 470 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:50:24 Come on bro 471 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:50:31 400 2 hrs 472 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:50:34 Cash up front 473 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:50:40 He cum before that 474 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:50:43 Whatever 475 9288917"jason" *****01 Ian 11/09/15 23:50:55 No bro I told you 400 an hour 476 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:51:13 He is crying 1.5s then 477 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:51:19 Serious 478 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:51:37 90 min 400 479 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:51:46 Or he for 300 480 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:51:55 For an hr 481 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:52:02 Work with me bro 482 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:52:06 Cash in hand 483 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:52:40 ? 484 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:53:39 Bud? 485 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:53:58 Incoming call 486 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:55:19 Fuck man 487 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:55:39 400 hr 488 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:55:41 Come 489 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:55:49 He. Eying 490 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:55:53 Crying 491 9288917"jason" *****01 Ian 11/09/15 23:56:05 Ci 492 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:56:13 Yup Transcribed: "We're in apartment 30 Sunset retreat, that's the fuckin place when your coming towards Triple C on the road heading up on the right hand side, there's like Sunset Ryan Retreat, anyway, we're at Sunset Retreat number 30" PTT-20150911-WA0015-amr 493 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 11/09/15 23:58:19 494 9288917"jason" *****01 Ian 11/09/15 23:58:36 On my way 495 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 12/09/15 00:02:40 Which girl 496 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 12/09/15 00:06:37 ...... 497 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 12/09/15 00:06:39 Incoming call 498 9288917"jason" *****01 Ian 12/09/15 00:10:27 [IMAGE] IMG-20150911-WA0005.jpg 499 9288917"jason" *****01 Ian 12/09/15 00:10:27 [IMAGE] IMG-20150911-WA0005.jpg 500 9288917"jason" *****01 Ian 12/09/15 00:36:45 Am here 501 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 12/09/15 00:53:56 What time you coming back 502 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 12/09/15 00:53:59 And I am passed 503 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 12/09/15 00:54:01 Passed 504 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 12/09/15 00:54:04 Passed 505 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 12/09/15 00:54:08 Pissed 506 *****01 Ian 9288917"jason" 12/09/15 00:54:14 No even a strip tease 507 9288917"jason" *****01 Ian 12/09/15 00:54:35 She cum to fuck bri 508 9288917"jason" *****01 Ian 12/09/15 00:54:40 Bro ii. I have already found that the Crown has satisfied me so that I am sure taht of the attribution of “Jason” to the defendant. The conversation relating as it does to girls, the price discussed and the images, of nude and semi-nude women which followed once the 01 Ian asks to see; the offer made for 1.5 hours and the sum of $400.00 suggested for that time, all go to satisfy me to the requisite standard that this conversation relates to the provision of sexual services or sexual activity with a prostitute or show that the defendant was controlled the movements of a prostitute sufficient for the elements of this offence to be proved. It is clear from this evidence that Jason controlled the movements of the ‘girl’ who was dropped off and it was stated clearly what she was to do for the money that was offered: “She come to fuck bro.” iii. I am satisfied so that I am sure that the defendant is guilty on Count 11.

¶ [120] For the avoidance of doubt, in each instance in which I have found that the Crown has proved its case I have gone on to consider whether the defendant has proved the contrary on the balance of probabilities that he was not knowingly living on the earning of a prostitute.

¶ [121] I have considered his evidence and find that he has not done so.

¶ [122] The verdicts of this Court are therefore as follows: i. Count 1 – Guilty ii. Count 2 – Guilty iii. Count 3 – Guilty iv. Count 4 – Not Guilty v. Count 5 _ Not Guilty vi. Count 6 – Guilty vii. Count 7 – Not Guilty viii. Count 8 – Guilty ix. Count 9 - Not Guilty x. Count 10 – Not Guilty xi. Count 11 - Guilty Dated this 22nd day of May 2019. Justice Marlene I. Carter Judge of the Grand Court (Acting)