Beswick J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL SIDE COURTS OFFICE LIBRARY INDICTMENT NO.: 57/12 DAVID EMMANUEL PARCHMENT v. REGINA Appearances: Mr. Michael Wingrave of Stenning & Associates for the Applicant/Defendant Ms. Tricia Hutchinson for the Respondent/Crown Before: Justice Carol Beswick (Actg.) Heard: 31st August 2012 RULING ON APPLICATION FOR BAIL
The Applicant is charged with the offence of conspiracy to commit robbery, and the particulars are that on the 2nd and the 3rd May 2012 he conspired with three named Co-Defendants to commit robbery at Scotiabank Ltd, in George Town, Cayman Islands.
All the alleged perpetrators were arrested and remanded in custody. Bail was not granted to the Applicant, but was offered to the others charged for the same offence. The Applicant, Mr. David Parchment, now renews his application for bail. THE FACTS
On the 3rd May 2012 three masked men entered a branch of Scotiabank Ltd. and robbed the cashiers of cash. The vehicle used by the three men to flee the scene of the robbery was abandoned and was later found to be registered to this Applicant, David Emmanuel Parchment.
The Applicant’s girlfriend, Shavonda Watson, provided a statement to the police, in which she stated that she owned the vehicle but licensed it in the name of her boyfriend, Mr. Parchment. He drove the vehicle regularly because she did not have a valid driver’s licence. Ms. Watson spoke of the Applicant’s whereabouts on the 3rd May 2012 and said that on that day she saw him between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., when he visited her at her workplace on a bicycle, to return what she knew to be the only key for the vehicle in question. She said she saw the Applicant again sometime after 1:00 p.m. and they spent the rest of that afternoon together.
On the morning of the 4th May, the Applicant reported to the police that the vehicle had been stolen. When he and Ms. Watson were interviewed at the police station during the course of that report, the Applicant was arrested for suspicion of robbery.
On Friday the 8th June the Applicant provided a caution statement to the police implicating three other accused persons as being part of planning the robbery at the bank. The Applicant also stated that it was agreed with the other accused persons that he would receive a sum of money for the use of the car belonging to his girlfriend. SUBMISSIONS BY THE PROSECUTION
The Prosecution opposes this application for bail and submits that if released on bail, the Applicant would fail to surrender to custody and would obstruct the course of justice. The Prosecution argues that the Applicant has not paid regard to his obligations under previous grants of bail.
Further, the Crown’s submission was that the Applicant should remain in custody for his protection or welfare, in view of the fact that he has assisted the police in the investigations and may be at risk in his community. THE LAW AND ANALYSIS
It is agreed that the law provides that the Defendant is entitled to bail and that it is the prosecution that must satisfy the Court that there is a reason not to grant him his entitlement.
Section 18 of the Bail Law (2010 Revision) reads: “18. A court or police officer shall grant bail to a person who is entitled to bail under this Part unless – (a) the court or police officer is satisfied the person, if released on bail would – (i) fail to surrender to custody; (ii) commit an offence while on bail; or (iii) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or another person; (b) the court or police officer is satisfied the person should remain in custody for his protection or welfare; ….”
Section 19 of the Bail Law provides that in coming to a conclusion concerning bail, the Court may consider (among other things): "19. ............— (a) the nature and seriousness of the offence (and the probable method of dealing with the defendant or offender); (b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the defendant or offender; (c) the defendant’s or offender’s record as respect the fulfillment of his obligations under previous grants of bail ...; and (d) in the case of a person referred to in section 17(1)(a), the strength of evidence of the defendant having committed the offence." 14 FAILURE TO SURRENDER TO CUSTODY 15 16 12. The likelihood of the Applicant failing to surrender to custody if granted bail must be considered. The Defendant has demonstrated that he may fail to surrender to custody, if left to his own devices. He has done so twice, though it is not clear whether reference to those 2 instances concerns one incident. In any event in this matter he was to have reported at the police station and when he did not, the police found him at his premises in an attic which could only be accessed by climbing up a ladder which was not in place. 23 24 OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE/PROTECTION & WELFARE OF APPLICANT 25 26 13. The Prosecution will be relying on the evidence from Mr. Parchment to prosecute his co-defendants. It appears that there is some concern that, if released on bail, there may be interaction between the Applicant and his co-defendants, resulting in the prosecution being unable to present sufficient evidence against the men. That possibility does exist. However, the reality is that the co-defendants are on bail and there is now no readily apparent reason why the Applicant should be remanded in custody when his co-defendants enjoy freedom from custody. 1 14. That situation, in and of itself may well result in the Applicant not cooperating to 2 provide evidence for the prosecution because of a perception that he has not been 3 treated fairly by the system. 4 5 15. The police are said to be concerned about this Applicant’s safety once he comes out 6 into the community. Neither the Applicant nor his mother shares this concern. 7 8 16. The Prosecution has complete statements from the Applicant, Mr. Parchment, and 9 applications can be made to utilise these statements in the event that viva voce 10 evidence from him is not available or possible. 11 12 17. A Risk Assessment Report dated the 5th September 2012 has now been done by the 13 police and there is no information that the Applicant or family is under threat. 14 15 18. The current girlfriend of the Applicant has been visiting with him regularly at 16 HMPS Northward. There have been no negative reports concerning the interaction 17 between the Applicant and his girlfriend, and the police do not oppose such a 18 continued relationship although she is known to be friendly with some or all of the 19 co-accused persons. 20 POSSIBLE SENTENCE/SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE 21 22 19. The Applicant would have been in custody one year by the date of trial and there is 23 the possibility that the sentence could be anywhere between non-custodial and 24 custodial as he has assisted police investigations and is admitting his guilt in 25 committing the serious offence of conspiracy to robbery. 26 27 1 20. The Prosecution has not established why the Defendant should not be on bail. All 2 the reasons for objection can be addressed by appropriate conditions being attached 3 to an offer of bail. It is my view that the Applicant should not remain incarcerated 4 whilst the others, equally charged, have received the benefit of bail. 5 6 21. Accordingly, the Court will offer bail in these circumstances with conditions 7 similar to those of his co-accused. These conditions are to increase the likelihood of 8 his returning to stand his trial and to afford him the same treatment as his co- 9 accused. 10 11 22. Accordingly, I order that bail be offered in the sum of $30,000 with one surety with 12 the following conditions: 13 The defendant is: 14 (i) To live at home at 57 Miss Daisy Lane, West Bay; 15 (ii) To be indoors at his home under curfew from 7pm to 7 am; 16 (iii) To be electronically monitored as soon as a monitor becomes available; 17 (iv) To report to West Bay Police Station everyday between 4pm and 6 18 p.m.; 19 (v) Not to travel outside of the jurisdiction - Stop Order to be placed at the 20 ports; 21 (vi) To confirm that a notation has been made in the system and records of 22 the enforcement section of the Cayman Islands Immigration 23 Department and the Governor’s Office that the Defendant/Applicant’s 24 travel documents, namely the British Overseas Territory citizen 25 passport issued to the Defendant has been lost and has been 26 cancelled/revoked and that the Caymanian passport has been cancelled. (viii) To have no contact or association with co-accused or their relatives or known friends of the co-accused, excluding Shevanda Watson, whilst she remains his girlfriend or companion. Dated this the 11th September 2012 Madam Justice Carol Beswick (Actg.) Judge of the Grand Court