Police say an incorrect password is the reason why they are still holding on to a mobile phone seized last March from a guest worker accused of stealing from her former employer.

Beauty therapist Jay Ann Alias is facing a criminal trial on theft charges in May and insists the device has evidence that will prove her innocence.

Police officers took the phone ten months ago when they raided the Warwick apartment she rented from her boss.

They said she gave them the wrong password at the time and so the phone must undergo a “further forensic process”.

Ms Alias said she only found out the password she provided was wrong on December 20, when the investigating officer in the case called her after The Royal Gazette asked the Bermuda Police Service why it still had the device.

During that call, the officer told her she could collect the phone on December 27.

When she went to Hamilton Police Station that day, the detective constable was not there and she left empty-handed.

The officer raised the password issue in a call on December 29 and then reiterated the problem in an e-mail, telling Ms Alias the phone had “not been examined as yet”.

He wrote: “This means that a further forensic process must take place in order to extract the data.

“This extraction process takes a little longer, so we ask that you please bear with us.”

Ms Alias, who is accused by her former employer Hanifah Smith of stealing items from the beauty salon where she worked, said she was frustrated and worried about the continued delay in getting the phone back.

“I haven’t been able to build my defence due to the failure of returning my device,” she said.

She added that it had proof the items were in her apartment for staff training, sanctioned by Ms Smith.

Tanisha Butler, Ms Smith’s lawyer, told the Gazette that her client “contends that she does not condone training outside of the salon”.

The investigating police officer told her on October 20 in an e-mail that he would seek permission from a superintendent to return the device to her and let her know the response by October 25.

She filed a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority, via the BPS, and received no response.

“They asked me for the password right at the exact moment on March 27, 2023, that they seized the phone,” said Ms Alias.

She added that she believed she gave the right password to detectives.

“Now he doesn’t know when he can give it back to me?”

She said it was hard to understand why the password problem was not raised sooner. She also criticised police for wasting her time on December 27.

The BPS said: “In accordance with section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 2006, if a police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that an electronic device contains evidence related to an offence or constitutes evidence itself, the device may be seized for forensic examination or further investigation.

“The phone belonging to Ms Alias has not yet been processed due to difficulty accessing information it may contain.

“The password provided to us to unlock the device is incorrect. All attempts to obtain the correct password from Ms Alias have so far been unsuccessful.

“This means that a further forensic process must take place in order to extract the data.”

“For reasons of privacy and to prevent against possible evidence tampering” the police have rejected the suggestion of using a third party to extract the information.

The BPS added: “Once the phone’s storage has been accessed, should evidence be discovered that may assist her in her court matter, it is a requirement for such information be given to Ms Alias and the Department of Public Prosecutions/courts will be notified accordingly.”

The Magistrates’ Court trial date is set for May 1.

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