Threesome on robbery charges are victims -lawyer tells court

Magistrate Hazel Octave-Hamilton granted $125,000 bail each to three Roxanne Burnham Gardens youths accused of robbing another of a BlackBerry Smartphone and other items.

The allegation against Patrick Dundas, Nafatali Favourite and Lafatali Clarke is that on August 9, at John Street, Campbellville, Georgetown, being together with another person, they robbed Joveir Kareem of a BlackBerry phone, a wristwatch, a haversack and a quantity of cash, amounting to a total of $62,000.

They were charged jointly and were not required to plead to the indictable charge of robbery with aggravation, when it was read to them at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.

Attorney Vic Puran, who represented the defendants, asked the court to grant his clients bail in a reasonable sum, saying they had no antecedents, posed no risk of flight, had fixed addresses and had been cooperating with the police.

Dundas, 19, is a baker who resides at Lot 1 Roxanne Burnham Gardens while Favourite, 21, who gave his occupation as a puri vendor, resides at 208 Roxanne Burnham Gardens. Clarke, 20, lives at 7 Rasville, Roxanne Burnham Gardens.

In his address to the court, the attorney said that “the bogus charge” before the court got its genesis some three days before the day in question, when Kareem allegedly assaulted Clarke, who sustained injuries. He said Clarke was involved in an incident near Stabroek Market when the Kareem began to taunt him by folding pieces of paper with which he pelted him. Puran said that his client told Kareem to desist from so doing, but he continued.

A day after the initial incident, Puran said that his clients were walking along the road when they encountered the complainant again, and he, along with others, began to trouble the accused, after which a fight broke out among them. He said Kareem injured Clarke. The court then heard that Kareem subsequently called the police, at which point he told the lawmen that he was robbed by the accused.

The lawyer advanced too that the complainant should have been charged as well because of the injury he inflicted upon Clarke.

In presenting the prosecution’s facts, Police Sergeant Lionel Harvey said Clarke did tell the police about the initial incident and it was entered into the police diary. How-ever, no police report was ever made.

It was at this point that Puran said that it was unfair that his clients were all charged and not Kareem as well. A visibly angry Puran said that he could not see why the police did not make a report of the incident, “instead of merely entering the information into a police diary.”

“What do the police think was the purpose of Clarke telling them his story that he was injured by Kareem?” he questioned.

According to Harvey, on the day in question, the complainant had just exited a minibus, when the defendants approached and proceeded to rob him. The court heard that defendants relieved Kareem of the items mentioned in the charge and made good their escape but was subsequently apprehended by a mobile police patrol. Harvey said that the young men, who had the items in their possession, were later taken into custody after which they were arrested and charged.

Puran argued that the way the police handled the entire matter, especially as it relates to instituting charges, was a breach of justice. “It is most unfair that the police saw it fit to charge my clients only and not [Kareem] as well, even though they were in possession of information that he had injured one of my clients.”

The prosecution had no objection to the men being granted bail, but requested that it be in a substantial sum to ensure they return to stand trial. They were all ordered to appear in Court One on October 21.

Around the Web

Comments