I am speaking of the astonishing trial
of assistant chief immigration officer for compliance, Jeannie Lewis.
Lewis, who had been at the immigration department for thirty years
before her arrest, was charged with her home in Savannah being used
for illegal drugs and there was an illegal immigrant living there.

One has to be found guilty without any
a shadow of a doubt and it was obvious from the commencement of the
trial there was a lot of reasonable doubt.

The Crown was relying mainly on CCTV
footage that showed her two sons were dealing in illegal drugs at
Lewis' home, there was no footage of her being there at the time this
was going on, or showing that she was aware this was going on.

There was no evidence supplied by the
Crown to question the status of a friend of one of her sons, Antonio
Bullard that he was an illegal immigrant, and had been staying there
with that knowledge and permission.

Good Heavens, the woman was a mother of
the sons and was an immigration officer for many years without a
blemish on her character, and in a very senior position. It is
difficult for nay woman to question their own off spring unless they
have almost concrete proof they are lying.

When the police came to her home there
was five people there and everyone was ordered outside. A police
officer made an assumption, without any other proof, that Lewis knew
Ballard because she handed him a pair of slippers she was wearing.
The reason – they were his! He had pointed it out to her.. She had
slipped them on because they were with a pile of slippers outside the
home on the porch, being the nearest pair.

No attempt by the police to verify any
of that or even question it. Surely, police officers and the Crown
prosecutors must know assumptions are not evidence?

As for questioning Ballard, he was
deported. His evidence couldn't be challenged.

It took three years for this case to
come to trial. Three years whilst Lewis was placed on leave on full
pay, which we were paying.

The whole case brought by the
prosecution was delayed and adjourned on numerous occasions because
of various legal issues but the Crown still went ahead. It's like
placing a horse, who doesn't like being fenced in, in a paddock with
the gate open.

There is no chance of successfully
containing the horse. Therefore, don't do it.

How could anyone be convinced without a
shadow of a doubt that Lewis was guilty. There wasn't even any
reasonable doubt to convict her.

There was, however, plenty of
reasonable doubt to find Lewis Not Guilty.

That was precisely the verdict of
Magistrate Kirsty-Ann Gunn.

I am surprised she didn't ask my
question.

Why ever was this case brought to
trial?