…freed  on 2nd  count for receiving stolen 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 were affirmed.
However, the robber was freed by the said Court on a second count of 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. Yonetie Cummings-Edwards, (now a Justice of appeal) appeared for the State.
The appellant was one of five armed robbers who staged a daring daylight robbery on July 21, 1994, during which they held up West Bank, Demerara,  businessman Reymond Mohammed 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 Mohammed, a  Cambio dealer, telling him that he was wanted at Police Headquarters on a report  for dealing  in counterfeit  foreign  currency.
The robbers blindfolded he 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, after which, they made good their escape.
Mohammed’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, Mohammed who was dumped in the trench,  managed to escape  death.   After freeing himself of his shackles, he was rescued by a minibus driver who took him to the East La Penitence Police Station where he reported the matter to the Police.
There, he related the 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 the 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  Mohammed 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 6.30hrs 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 US currency,  Canadian currency, and Guyana currency, some of which was in the pockets of his troussers and the rest in a black bag which he had in the car.
As he was proceeding north along the East Bank of Demerara,  in the Houston area, in the vicinity  of Guyana Timbers Limited, a white motorcar pulled up alongside his car and a person in police uniform and who was sitting  on the left side of the car  told him (the businessman)  that he was wanted at Eve Leary  Police Station for an investigation  into an allegation that he was dealing in counterfeit US currency.
He, Mohammed, 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 Mohammed,  who was still  sitting in his car.  That person repeated that Mohamed was required at the Eve Leary Police Station .  Mohammed replied by stating  that that person should enter his car and that he would drive his car to Eve Leary.
That person then pointed a gun at Mohammed’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 Mohammed had known before that day.
The five men then forced Mohammed 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 troussers pockets the US 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.
Then the car drove away with the five men inside.   Mohammed 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.
Mohammed later went in search of his car but did not find it.   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 the vehicle, but the black bag in which he had some of the money was not there.
The motorcar was later handed over to him.  He attended an identification parade which at Ruimveld Police Station on 2nd of August, 1994, and there he 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 judgment, 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 motorcar  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 one of them had 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 19th  July, 1994.
The State had contended that despite Devonish’s  failure to identify the appellant, other evidence could be used to provide 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 jury 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, 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  adequately to the jury.
Allowing the appeal on the ground of receiving stolen property, the Appellate Court  ruled, “In the present case, this strict proof  of identity   of the motorcar is lacking .   Mohammed 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 while Corolla car.  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 13:30 hrs on the 21st day of July, 1994.    It is probable that the car in which the men drove up was that belonged to Audrey Devonish,  but mere probability  is not sufficient  basis from which it could be inferred that  the car was indeed that of Audrey  Devonish.   The evidence of Mohammed  lacked sufficient details to  justify  the inference that the car in which the men had driven up in  was  indeed owned by Audrey Devonish.
According to the Chancellor who delivered the judgment for the Appellate Court, in the circumstances, the appeal in respect of the conviction for receiving stolen property is allowed and the conviction and sentence must be quashed.
But in relation to the offence of robbery under arms,  Chancellor Kennard said, “I would confirm the conviction and sentence.”