But freed for receiving stolen motor car

IN 1999, armed robber Keith Thomas had his appeal against his conviction and sentence for robbery under arms, committed on businessman Reymond Mohamed, dismissed by the Guyana Court of Appeal.
His conviction and sentence was affirmed.

But the robber was freed by the said Court on a second count for receiving a stolen motorcar. This happened because the prosecution had failed to prove ownership of the stolen vehicle, which five robbers had used to stage the daylight robbery.
The Appellate Court was constituted by Chancellor of the judiciary Mr. Cecil Kennard and Justices of Appeal Mr. Lennox Perry and Mr. Prem Persaud.

Senior Counsel Mr. Bernard De Santos had appeared for the Appellant Thomas while Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. Ms. Yonette Cummings-Edwards, appeared for the State.

The Appellant was one of five armed robbers who staged a daring daylight robbery on July 21, 1994, during which the robbers held up West Bank Demerara businessman Reymond Mohamed at gun point, on the Houston public road, East Bank Demerara.
They abandoned the car which they had used to effect the robbery, when one of the robbers who was attired in a policeman’s uniform, stopped Mohamed, a Cambio dealer, telling him that he was wanted at police headquarters on a report for dealing in counterfeit foreign currency.

The robbers blindfolded the victim, gagged and tied him up. Then using his own car, they took him to the Botanical gardens where they relieved him of millions of dollars before dumping him in a trench, following which they made good their escape.
Mohamed’s car which was used by the robbers was found abandoned at Stone Avenue, Campbellville, while the stolen car which was used to effect the robbery was found abandoned on the Houston public road.

However, Mohamed, who was dumped in the trench, managed to escape death. After getting himself freed of his shackles, he was rescued by a minibus driver who took him to the East la Penitence Police Station where Mohamed reported the matter to the police.
== By George Barclay ==

There, he related his ordeal and told the police that the Appellant Keith Thomas who was well-known to him was one of the robbers.
Thomas was subsequently arrested and charged with robbery under arms and receiving stolen property.
At his High Court trial before a judge and jury, he was convicted on both counts and was jailed for both armed robbery and receiving stolen property.
Thomas appealed against his convictions and sentences.

The facts of the case disclosed that businessman, Reymond Mohamed, who lives at Canal No. 2 Polder, West Bank Demerara is licensed to deal in foreign currency.
On the 21st July, 1994 he left his home about 6:30 am with his motorcar – a Toyota Camry registration number PDD 2164 – for his business place somewhere in Georgetown.
He had with him a large quantity of currency notes, including USA currency, Canadian currency and Guyana currency, some of which were in the pockets of his trousers and the rest were in a black bag which he had in the car.

Ad he was proceeding north along the East Bank Demerara Highway, in the Houston area, in the vicinity of Guyana Timbers Limited, a white motorcar pulled up alongside of his car and a person who was dressed in police uniform and who was sitting on the left side of the said car told him (the businessman) that he was wanted at Eve Leary Police Station for investigation into an allegation that he was dealing in counterfeit US currency.

He, Mohamed, stopped his car at the corner of the road and the other car pulled up in front of him. The person, who was dressed in a police uniform, came out of the car and went up to Mohamed, who was still sitting in his car. That person repeated that Mohamed was required at the Eve Leary Police Station; Mohamed replied by stating that that person should enter his car and that he would drive in his car to Eve Leary.

That person then pointed a gun at Mohamed’s head braced him against his car and then placed a pair of handcuff on his hands. Four men then came out of the other car, one of whom Mohamed had known before that day.
The five men then forced Mohamed to get into the car after his face was tied with a piece of cloth.

Before then, however, the five men had removed from his trousers pockets the USA currency and the other currency he had there. The car then drove off and he was thrown out of the car into a trench, at the back of the Botanical Gardens.
After this the car drove away with the five men inside. Mohamed came out of the trench and the cloth which was used to tie his face fell to his neck.

The driver of a passing minibus to whom he had called out took him to the East La Penitence Police Station where he made a report. From there he was taken to the Brickdam Police Station and later to the Ruimveldt Police Station. He was later taken to the Houston Public road where the incident had taken place. He noticed a white Toyota Corolla car there.

Mohamed later went in search of his car but did not find same. Two days later, on the 23rd July, 1994, in company with the police he went to Stone Avenue in the Campbellville area where he saw his car. He searched same but the black bag in which he had some of the money was not there.

The motor car was later handed over to him. He attended an identification parade which was held at Ruimveldt Police Station on 2nd of August, 1994 and there he had identified the appellant as one of the persons who had robbed him on the 21st July, 1994. The appellant had been arrested in the Lodge area on the 1st August, 1994.
Chancellor Kennard, who delivered the judgement said that so far as the count of receiving stolen property was concerned, the prosecution relied on the doctrine of recent possession to found a conviction.

The Chancellor pointed out that a witness Romeo Devonish had testified that on the 19th July, 1994, he was sitting in his sister’s motor car PEE 5518 in front of Demico House, Brickdam, when two men came up to him and requested him to take them to Alexander Street, Georgetown.

During the course of the journey the men requested him to stop the car as they wished to answer a call of nature. He came out of the car and after he had done so one of the men pointed a gun at him and entered the car with the other and they drove away. He next saw the car on 21st July, 1994 in the Mc Doom Village area near to Guyana Timbers Ltd.
The Chancellor said that at the trial the appellant was not identified by Devonish as one of the men who had driven away in his car on the 19 July, 1994.

The State had contended that despite Devonish’s failure to identify the appellant, other evidence could be used to providet the link, but Mr De Santos, for the Appellant, disagreed and objected.
Mr. De Santos had also submitted that the learned trial judge had erred in sending the count of receiving stolen property to the ury as there was no evidence to support it.
Among other things, Mr. De Santos had submitted that inadmissible evidence of a material and extremely prejudicial nature was wrongly admitted in evidence by the trial judge therefore rendering the trial an unfair one.

De Santos also said that the summing up of the trial judge was confusing, unbalanced and therefore biased against the appellant and could not yield to a fair trial. In particular, it was submitted that the trial judge did not adequately put the case of the appellant fairly and/or adequately to the jury.

Allowing the appeal on the count of Receiving stolen property, the Appellate Court ruled, “In the present case this strict proof of identity of the motor car is lacking. Mohamed had stated that the men had driven up in a white car and that later the same day when he had returned to Houston Public Road he had seen a white Corolla car there. He gave no description of the car in which the men had driven up save and except that it was a white car.

Romeo Devonish had testified that he had seen his sister’s car at Houston’s Public Road near to Guyana Timbers Ltd at about 1:30 pm on the 21st of July, 1994. It is probable that the car in which the men drove up was that of Audrey Devonish, but mere probability is not sufficient bases from which it would be inferred that the car was indeed that of Audrey Devonish. The evidence of Mohamed lacked sufficient details to justify the inference that the car in which the men had driven up in, was indeed that of Audrey Devonish.

In the circumstances, the appeal in respect of the conviction for receiving stolen property is allowed and the conviction and sentence must be quashed, the Chancellor said.
But in relation to the offence of robbery under arms, Chancellor Kennard said, “I would confirm the conviction and sentence.
The blemishes in the summing up were peripheral and did not affected the validity of the summing up or the safety of the conviction.