Police have withheld specifics on the stationing of officers outside the home of a couple who were accused of breaking Covid-19 quarantine rules while the island remained under emergency regulations imposed during the pandemic.

The Bermuda Police Service turned down a request for information on the number of officers used and their time spent keeping watch at the Devonshire home of Sophia Cannonier and Michael Watson in 2021.

It said divulging the details would “allow criminals to gauge the capacity and tactical capabilities of the BPS, potentially enabling them to target specific areas of the island for criminal activities in future BPS operations”.

The BPS response to a public access to information request from The Royal Gazette added: “This would lead to an increase in crime and compromise law enforcement efforts.

“Such disclosure would hinder the ability to provide an efficient policing service and compromise the duty of care owed to all members of the public.”

The Gazette asked for information about the stakeout imposed on the Cannonier and Watson residence.

Both were found guilty last July in Magistrates’ Court of refusing to comply with a requirement to quarantine and failure to complete travel authorisation forms on July 11, 2021, when they returned to the island from Britain.

The two were also charged with breaking a quarantine order on July 20 that year by leaving their Devonshire home. Cannonier was also accused of allowing unauthorised people to visit a place of quarantine.

They went to trial challenging the island’s emergency regulations, which required unvaccinated travellers to quarantine in a hotel for two weeks at their own expense.

The measure, introduced the month before the couple touched down at the airport, drew criticism as heavy-handed from the One Bermuda Alliance as well as the Bermuda Industrial Union.

It also sparked a demonstration outside the Cabinet Office that drew hundreds of protesters.

Cannonier and Watson attracted a crowd of supporters for openly challenging the restriction and leaving the airport for home, after refusing to board a bus taking them to a hotel.

A health officer, accompanied by police, went to the couple’s home on July 11 to arrest them for violating health restrictions.

In his ruling, magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo said police chose to back down owing to “non co-operation of the defendants, the aggressive crowd present in support of the defendants, discussions with their counsel and consideration of the defendants’ young children”.

The two were allowed to quarantine at home with police guards stationed on the property — but police said anyone else flouting the restrictions would be arrested and prosecuted.

During the couple’s subsequent trial before Mr Tokunbo, defence lawyer Marc Daniels argued that both had already developed a natural immunity to Covid-19 after contracting the illness.

Mr Daniels told the court they had produced medical evidence of antibodies against the virus upon their arrival at L.F. Wade International Airport.

The couple’s challenge was based on the argument that they had a reasonable excuse not to comply with the vaccination-based restriction.

However, Mr Tokunbo rejected the argument, ruling that the quarantine protocol had been based solely on vaccination, and “did not include antibody status or natural immunity”.

The magistrate said at the close of the trial that sentencing would go ahead this month after social inquiry reports were handed in for both defendants.

Cannonier told the Gazette last week that the couple’s sentencing had been put on hold after they filed an appeal last month against the judgment.

The two have vowed to fight the case “all the way to the top”.

In the wake of the guilty ruling, the Gazette sought details on the cost to the public purse of posting police to keep watch over the couple’s home.

Information about the number of officers posted and the amount of hours spent on the lookout was also requested.

Responding to the Pati request, a BPS information officer said the police service “does not record overall expenditure against specific events, as officers policed the event as part of their normal duties”.

Further details were withheld and it was stated that the information could be “exploited to identify and target areas where law enforcement presence might be perceived as weaker, thereby increasing the risk of undetected criminal activity”.

The response added: “The evolving and unpredictable nature of the international security landscape further underscores the need for caution.

“Disclosing information about operational resource deployment would diminish the BPS’s capabilities by giving criminals a better understanding of police resources, allowing them to develop countermeasures.”

Although the response acknowledged that the information would ensure transparency and accountability, there was “a very strong public interest” in protecting details about resources and operations in “highly sensitive areas such as crime prevention and public disorder prevention”.

The Gazette has asked for an internal review of the decision.

Cannonier said last week that a separate civil case was to go ahead in the Supreme Court, with a mention date set for this month.

The fitness and dance instructor was evicted last November from her studio in Devonshire.

She filed a judicial review challenging the legitimacy of the trial in Magistrates’ Court, saying its protracted delays had resulted in her studio falling behind on rent as a result of lost business.

Cannonier told the Gazette: “The natural immunity trial and the eviction case are connected.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers