R v Devon Wright Jr - Judgment

¶ IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL SIDE INDICTMENT NO: 87/10 THE QUEEN V DEVON EMMANUEL WRIGHT JR. Appearances: Ms. Marilyn Brandt Crown Counsel, for the Crown Mr. John Furniss for the Defendant Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin Heard: 4th and 5th August 2011 JUDGMENT Introduction

¶ [1] At approximately 4:15 a.m. on the morning of Sunday the 18th July 2010 the front entrance door to Solomon’s Grocery, located at 150 Mary Street, George Town, Grand Cayman, was rammed by a Ford F150 truck, causing the door, and the surrounding walls to break away. A burglary then took place and a cash register was stolen.

¶ [2] The Crown has alleged that the Defendant, Devon Emmanuel Wright Jr., was part of a joint enterprise with another man, not before the Court, and they both caused damage to Solomon’s Grocery and stole the cash register.

¶ [3] The accused is charged with two Counts, namely, damage to property, contrary to s.267(1) of the Penal Code Law (2007 Revision), in that he, Devon Wright, the Defendant, together with a person unknown, on the 18th July 2010, at 150 Mary Street, George Town, Grand Cayman, without lawful excuse, willfully damaged the building known as Solomon’s Grocery, the property of Mr. Louis Solomon, with damage totaling CI$23,000.00.

¶ [4] The accused is also charged with burglary, contrary to s.243(1) of the Penal Code Law (2007 Revision). The particulars of Count 2 are that the Defendant, together with a person unknown, on the 18th July 2010, at 150 Mary Street, George Town, Grand Cayman, entered as trespasser, Solomon’s Grocery, and stole a cash register belonging to Mr. Louis Solomon. Case for the Prosecution

¶ [5] The Crown relied on 12 witnesses, exhibits and formal admissions read in, pursuant to s.34 of the Evidence Law (2007 Revision). Mr. Ritch Samuel Wallace ("Mr. Wallace")

¶ [6] Mr. Wallace was a security officer with Hammerheads Bar, located on North Church Street, George Town, Grand Cayman, where, on the 18th July 2010 he was on duty.

¶ [7] At just after 4 a.m. he said he heard a truck racing up Mary Street. He said he looked in that direction and he saw the truck make a sharp right turn into Solomon’s Grocery (also known as “Boosie’s”) door. He noted that there was a large cloud of dust, but after the dust cleared he saw a man come out of the passenger side on to the hood of the vehicle and enter the shop. Mr.
Wallace said the man came out of the shop and put a cash register on to the front of the hood of the truck. Mr. Wallace said the man next jumped down off the truck went down to Rock Hole Road with cash register in his hand.

¶ [8] Mr. Wallace’s evidence is that the driver sat in the truck for approximately three minutes. He said the driver stayed in the truck whilst the passenger was in the shop. The driver then got out of the truck and then went up into the Rock Hole area.

¶ [9] Mr. Wallace said there was nothing obstructing his view. He said the corner of Mary Street was lit up and there were lights on the eaves of Solomon’s Grocery.

¶ [10] Mr. Wallace said the men were dressed in dark clothes but he noticed that they both had white T-shirts over their heads. He said it was not a mask it was a T-shirt, because it was ruffled.

¶ [11] Mr. Wallace said that when the truck hit the shop he called 911 and told the police to “come quick” because a truck had run into Solomon’s Grocery store and a man has gone inside.

¶ [12] Mr. Wallace also saw the police arrive.

¶ [13] Under cross examination it was put to Mr. Wallace that he had said to the police that the man who entered the shop got out of the left side of the vehicle. Mr. Wallace said that was a mistake. He said the officer seemed to be in a hurry and he had not read the statement. Mr. Wallace said that in every other respect his statement was accurate, but he confirmed that the passenger got out of the right-hand side of the vehicle.
Mr. Howard Ellington

¶ [14] Mr. Ellington gave a statement on the 18th July 2010 and with the consent of the Defence this statement was read into evidence.

¶ [15] Mr. Ellington said he lived opposite "Boosie's shop" Solomon's Grocery. He said at some time after 4 a.m. on the 18th July 2010 he heard a "loud bang" come from the direction of Solomon's Grocery. Mr. Ellington opened the door of his house and he saw a white truck in the side of the Solomon's Grocery building. He said the truck ran into the front door area. He said he "walked up the road" and he saw a man jump on to the hood of the truck. Mr. Ellington said the man was wearing a "black long blue jeans pants" black T-shirt and a yellow handkerchief covering his face. Consequently, Mr. Ellington could only see the man's eyes. He said the T-shirt was black with short sleeves. He said the man had a cash register in his hand and the cash register was dark in colour.

¶ [16] Mr. Ellington said that when he saw this man he ran back to his door, and then he looked back and saw another man come out of the shop. This man was of a similar complexion to the first man. He was tall and slim and he was also wearing a yellow handkerchief over his face, with only his eyes exposed. This man also jumped on the hood of the truck and went in the same direction as the first man.

¶ [17] Mr. Ellington said the second man had a dark electric item in his hand that looked like a computer, and he went inside and called the police.
PC Nakea Mendez

¶ [18] PC Mendez had been an officer in the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service (RCIPS) for over two years. On the morning of the 18th July 2010 at approximately 4:19 a.m. he received a radio transmission from 911 that a burglary was in progress at Solomon’s Grocery. He said he was at the Royal Bank of Canada in George Town when he received the radio transmission, and he was with PC Bowen.

¶ [19] PC Mendez and PC Bowen drove directly to Solomon’s Grocery using the blue lights. PC Mendez said he did not use the siren because he had been told that a burglary was in progress and he did not wish the persons involved to hear the siren.

¶ [20] PC Mendez said that he turned right at Fort Street and then left on to Mary Street, towards North Church Street. He said from receiving the call, the time he took to get to Solomon’s Grocery was about 15-20 seconds.

¶ [21] On arrival at Solomon’s Grocery he saw the white F150 truck, and as he got closer he saw two males running away from the rear of the building. PC Mendez said he was on Mary Street and he could see the two men on Rock Hole Road through the open ground at the rear of Solomon’s Grocery.

¶ [22] PC Mendez turned right on to Rock Hole road and he said the two men were still running ahead of him. He drove on to Rock Hole road to Diaz Lane. He said once the men got onto Diaz Lane, they both went in different directions. He said the one with the object in his hand went left, and the other, without
the object, went right. As a result, PC Mendez got out of his vehicle and pursued, on foot, the one with the object in his hand.

¶ [23] The officer described the object as being the size of the control unit of a computer CPU. PC Mendez also confirmed that both men being chased were wearing dark clothing.

¶ [24] PC Mendez’s evidence is that he chased the man with the object along Diaz Lane. In the course of the chase, when he went into a tenement yard, heading towards Wahoo Close, he saw the man climb over a 3-4 foot fence, and then the man was out of his sight for about 3 or 4 seconds.

¶ [25] PC Mendez said he ran back towards Diaz Lane and the man came out without the object onto Diaz Lane again, this time heading towards Luna Lane. PC Mendez said he followed the man onto Luna Lane. PC Mendez said he had put on his flashlight and shone it on the man. He said the man ran onto Luna Lane, onto an open lot behind the apartments known as Lucky Apartments.

¶ [26] PC Mendez noted that the man he was pursuing took off a black jacket or hoodie that he was wearing at the time. PC Mendez identified the black jacket as an exhibit. PC Mendez said he continued to chase the man to the rear of the Lucky Apartments and on to Cruz Lane and then into some nearby bushes, with his flashlight shining on the man. PC Mendez said that the man had now run into a dead end. When he had the light on the man he recognised him as the Defendant, Devon Wright.

¶ [27] PC Mendez said as soon as he recognised him he shouted his name “Devon, Police, don’t move.”

¶ [28] PC Mendez said at that point the Defendant made an attempt to run across him, whereupon PC Mendez said he wrestled him to the ground and administered a pepper spray to bring him under control.

¶ [29] PC Mendez said his chase of the man with the object – from the start up to the point of apprehending him – lasted approximately 10 minutes.

¶ [30] In cross examination PC Mendez was asked whether the two men were running together, in that, were they close together, or was one way ahead of the other: PC Mendez said that from the angle which he first saw them on the main road he could not say if they were running together, side by side. But PC Mendez said the men were running away from the building.

¶ [31] In cross examination PC Mendez was asked to describe the clothing of the other individual he did not chase: PC Mendez said he could not give a description for that individual, apart from the fact that he was wearing dark clothing.

¶ [32] In cross examination PC Mendez said he was approximately 20 feet behind the Defendant and he lost sight of the Defendant for 3 or 4 seconds after the Defendant climbed over the fence. He said after that he saw him running again across Diaz Lane towards Luna Lane in the same clothing, but without the object. PC Mendez confirmed that the Defendant remained in his view for the whole chase, save for the 3 or 4 seconds after he climbed over the fence and then ran back on to Diaz Lane.
Constable Cody Ryan Bowen

¶ [33] PC Bowen recalled being in the police patrol car with PC Mendez. PC Bowen said they received a radio transmission sometime around 4:15 a.m. from 911 that a burglary was in progress. As a result they drove from the Post Office, along Fort Street and down into Mary Street. He said it took less than 30 seconds to get to the location from receiving the transmission; later he said it only took a matter of seconds.

¶ [34] PC Bowen said that when they got to the location PC Mendez drove down Mary Street onto Rock Hole Road, and he saw two males, dressed in dark clothing, running along Rock Hole road towards Diaz Lane.

¶ [35] PC Bowen said they continued to give chase. He said what heightened their suspicion of the men was that both men were dressed in black and they were running at that time of the night when no one else was on the street.

¶ [36] He said one of the men was carrying a large object, the size of a speaker box. PC Bowen said when they entered Diaz Lane the two men looked back and they could have seen the police car. He said they split from each other. PC Bowen said the headlights of the police car were on, but he did not recall whether the blue lights or sirens were on.

¶ [37] PC Bowen said the man without the object ran down a side road on Diaz Lane. PC Bowen said he ran after the man without the object. He said he gave chase to the man who ran down the side road, but by the time he got to the little alley way, it was dark, there was a lot of bush in that area, and he realised that he had lost sight of the man.

¶ [38] PC Bowen said he next went back onto Diaz Lane and he saw PC Mendez giving chase to the other man, going down Luna Lane, and he then came upon them after the Defendant had been apprehended by PC Mendez. Sgt. Leighton Groves

¶ [39] In July 2010 Sgt. Groves was in the USG – the Uniformed Support Group, based at the George Town Police Station. He said sometime after 4 a.m. on the 18th July 2010 he was at George Town police station when he received a report of a burglary at Solomon’s Grocery. As a result of the call he got into his police vehicle and attended the scene.

¶ [40] He had been informed that two persons had been seen running from the store and, accordingly, he went from Solomon’s Grocery, along Diaz Lane, to Wahoo Close. Sgt. Groves said he heard a noise at a chain link fence near Wahoo Close. Shortly afterwards he drove onto Diaz Lane and he saw that PC Mendez and PC Bowen had arrested the Defendant, Devon Wright, and he was in their custody.

¶ [41] Later that morning Sgt. Groves led a search for the cash register. Starting at Solomon’s Grocery he moved down School Road, down to Diaz Lane and then across to Wahoo Close. He said it was then that he found the cash register. This was the cash register that was stolen from Solomon’s Grocery. Sgt. Groves identified the cash register, which became an exhibit.
PC Roje Williams

¶ [42] PC Williams’ statement was read in. He arrived at the scene and observed the white Ford F150 Registration Number 98 214. He made enquiries and discovered that the owners had been off the island, but they also confirmed that their vehicle had gone missing. Zoan Marin

¶ [43] She is attached to the Scenes of Crime Unit arrived at the scene at Solomon’s Grocery and swabbed the Ford F150 truck and the cash register. She also took photos of the scene, which were produced as an exhibit. Admissions

¶ [44] Admissions were produced by the Crown and included a certificate of analysis agreed between the parties from DNA LABS INTERNATIONAL dated the 29th July 2011, and submitted by Ms. Tiffany A. Royes, a forensic DNA analyst.

¶ [45] Ms. Royes confirmed that from swabs taken from the front right passenger side air bag, door arm-rest handle and on the front right passenger seat, DNA matching that of the Defendant was found.

¶ [46] In relation to the cash register, Ms. Royes found that there was no DNA of the Defendant found on it. Furthermore, it was established that there were no fingerprints of the Defendant on the cash register.
Mr. Louis Solomon

¶ [47] Louis Solomon is the owner of Solomon’s Grocery. He gave a statement to the police in which he identified the cash register which had gone missing. He confirmed that he could not say how much cash was in the cash register. When he saw the cash register in police custody he identified it as his cash register that had been stolen from the shop. He also confirmed that the damage to his shop cost $23,000.00. Lawrence Brown

¶ [48] Mr. Brown was the owner of the Ford F150 truck and he confirmed that he gave nobody permission to take his truck, which had been removed from his residence. Detective Constable Colin Pryce

¶ [49] Det. Constable Pryce gave two statements. He confirmed that on Tuesday the 20th July 2010 he interviewed the Defendant under caution, and the Defendant exercised his legal right to remain silent. Summary of the Case for the Prosecution

¶ [50] The Crown submits that the evidence of the Crown witnesses Mr. Wallace and Mr. Ellington, show that the Defendant and the other man not before the Court acted as part of a joint enterprise to damage Solomon’s Grocery shop in order to gain unlawful entry and then steal the cash register.

¶ [51] The Crown submits that on the evidence before the Court it was clearly the Defendant who then entered Solomon’s Grocery as a trespasser and stole the
cash register. The Crown submits that PC Mendez and PC Bowen followed both men and then PC Mendez chased the Defendant, who ran off down Diaz Lane to Wahoo Close. While PC Bowen chased the other man, PC Mendez kept close on the Defendant who deposited the cash register near Wahoo Close. The Defendant was apprehended by PC Mendez shortly afterwards. Case for the Defence

¶ [52] The Defendant said he was at home in Prospect when Harry/Harrington came and picked him up. He said Harrington had been drinking and he, the Defendant, had been smoking. He said Harry was halfway drunk, and he, the Defendant was “high.” He said Harrington had borrowed a truck. He said he never knew what the truck would be used for. He said it was a left-hand drive vehicle.

¶ [53] The Defendant said they were cruising around town in the truck and then suddenly Harry said “hang on, brace yourself,” and he turned right and crashed into a shop.

¶ [54] The Defendant said there had been no discussion and no joint enterprise. He said he was shocked and initially he could not get out of the vehicle, but he kicked the door. He said that he had heard sirens, but he did not want to be involved.

¶ [55] He said after the crash Harry had gone into the shop, grabbed the cash register and ran off with cash register. He said Harry said he must come with him, but he, the Defendant said no.

¶ [56] The Defendant said he saw all kinds of people. He said he did not run away with the cash register. He said they had not acted together and he did not know that Harrington was going to crash into the shop. He said they did not talk about it. The Defendant told the Court he did not want to be involved in what Harrington did.

¶ [57] Under cross examination the Defendant said he and Harry were "just chilling." The Defendant said he was smoking and Harry was drinking. He said that Harry said he was going to chill over a drink with a girl down in Rock Hole. The Defendant said he was "all high up" and the next thing he knew the truck was in the building.

¶ [58] The Defendant said he stayed in the vehicle for 5 to 8 minutes but then he kicked the door open and he got out holding his head. He said he waited another 7 or 8 minutes. In total he waited 15 minutes because he wanted to tell the police, but they took too long. He said if the police had come he would have told them what had happened. He said he waited for 15 minutes and then he took off.

¶ [59] The Defendant said he went down to Banana Way and got a draw of weed. He said he tried to call some friends to pick him up and then he saw the police coming and they started to chase him. He then dropped his weed because he did not want to get involved. He said: "I was going to tell the police, but they didn’t arrive." He said: "It wasn’t me, it was the other person."

¶ [60] The Defendant said he never knew that Harry was going to crash into the shop or take the cash register, and that is why he is pleading not guilty. Summary of the Case for the Defence

¶ [61] The Defence submits that the Defendant was not involved in any joint enterprise with the driver. It was the driver who decided, of his own accord, to crash into Solomon’s Grocery. It was the driver who went into the shop and took the cash register. It was the driver who ran off with the cash register.

¶ [62] The Defendant said he waited for about 8 minutes in the vehicle and then for another 7 or 8 minutes outside the vehicle, because he wanted to tell the police what had happened, but the police did not arrive.

¶ [63] The Defendant said he did not steal the cash register. Furthermore, the Defence relies on the fact that there was no DNA or fingerprints found on the cash register. The Defence submits the Defendant, at no time, had any control over the vehicle. The Defendant pleaded not guilty to both Counts on the Indictment. The Law

¶ [64] The Defendant elected to be tried by a Judge Alone, rather than a Judge and Jury, pursuant to s.129 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Cayman Islands.

¶ [65] Our Court of Appeal first dealt with the duties of a Judge in Judge Alone trials in its judgment in K. Richards v. R 2001 CILR 496 when Justice Rowe stated: "When a trial judge sitting alone has advised himself to the applicable principles of law, and given himself any necessary warning, he must indicate clearly in his judgment his reasons for acting as he did, in order to demonstrate that he has acted with the requisite degree of caution in mind and has therefore heeded his own warning. No specific form of words is necessary for this demonstration, what is necessary is that the Judge’s mind upon the matter should be clearly revealed."

¶ [66] In R. v. Dave Kennedy Whittaker Cr. App. R. No. 14 of 2006, the Court of Appeal gave some guidelines regarding the duties of a Judge in Judge Alone trials. In the Judgment of Mottley J.A. he adopted the Judgment of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland Lord Lowry in R v. Thompson [1977] NI 74 in which he stated at page 83: "While on the subject I might say a word on the duty of the judge when giving judgment in a trial under the 1973 Act. He has no jury to charge and therefore will not err if he does not state every legal proposition and review every fact and argument on either side. His duty is not as in a jury trial to instruct laymen as to every relevant aspect of the law or to give a full and balanced picture of the facts for decision by others. His task is to reach conclusions and to give reasons to support his view and, preferably, to notice any difficult or unusual points of law in order that if there is an Appeal, it may be seen how his view of the law informed his approach to the facts."

¶ [67] More recently our Court of Appeal in Randy Martin v. R Crim. App. R. 2 of 2010 delivered their reasons for dismissing the Appeal on the 7th December 2010. Mottley J.A. again adopting R v. Thompson [1977] NI 24 also adopted R v. Thain [1985] NI 457 where Lowry LCJ said at page 478:
“Where the trial is conducted and the factual conclusions are reached by the same person, one need not expect every step in the reasoning to be spelled out expressly, nor is the reasoning carried out in sealed compartments with no inter-communication or overlapping, even if the need to arrange a judgment in a logical order may give that impression. It can safely be inferred that, when deliberating on a question of fact with many aspects, even more certainly than when tackling a series of connected legal points, a judge who is himself the tribunal of fact will (a) recognize the issues and (b) view in its entirety a case where one issue is interwoven with another.”

¶ [68] Following Lowry LCJ in R v. Thompson and R v. Thain, Mottley J.A. said in Randy Martin v. R at paragraph 31: “From these cases the following guidance may be discerned. A judge sitting in a criminal case without a jury, in rendering his decision and giving his reasons for so concluding, is not required to review every fact and to detail each argument on which the prosecution and defence rely as if he were summing up to a jury. The judge must set out the conclusion reached and make clear the reasons for arriving at that conclusion. He is required to have regard to any difficult or unusual points of law and to show how those points of law have in anyway impacted the conclusion that he has reached.” Conclusion

¶ [69] The case for the prosecution is that the Defendant and the driver acted together in a joint enterprise to burgle Solomon’s Grocery.

¶ [70] The Crown submits that the Defendant with the driver caused damage to Solomon’s Grocery store because they, without lawful excuse, deliberately drove the vehicle into the building, willfully damaging the building, and causing damage in the sum of CI$23,000.00

¶ [71] The case for the prosecution is that the damage to the front door allowed the Defendant to enter into Solomon’s Grocery store and steal the cash register.

¶ [72] I have carefully listened to the witnesses and read the statements that the Crown has produced.

¶ [73] Mr. Wallace gave clear and cogent evidence. He was viewing the scene even before the vehicle drove into the front door. The area was well lit and his view of the scene was uninterrupted. His evidence was that he saw the passenger get out of the right hand door, go into the shop, come out, place the cash register on the hood of the vehicle, and then make off, with the cash register, towards Rock Hole road. We know that it was the Defendant who was the passenger. The Defendant’s DNA was found on the passenger side and the Defendant accepts that he was not the driver. Mr. Wallace said the driver waited in the vehicle on the left hand side for approximately three minutes and then followed the passenger down Rock Hole road.

¶ [74] Mr. Wallace also noted that both the driver and the passenger had what he described as T-shirts over their heads.

¶ [75] In addition Mr. Ellington, who lived opposite Solomon’s Grocery, also described the two men – both wearing dark clothes, with what he described as yellow handkerchiefs covering their faces. Again, this demonstrates that both the driver and the passenger were acting in concert when the vehicle was crashed into the shop, and the cash register stolen.

¶ [76] The Court notes that Mr. Ellington described the clothing over the men’s faces as yellow handkerchiefs, whereas Mr. Wallace described them as T-shirts. What is clear from both witnesses’ accounts is that both men were wearing clothing over their heads to conceal their identities. Additionally,
Mr. Ellington said that both men entered the shop. He said one came out with the cash register and the other come out with what looked like a computer.

¶ [77] On the evidence of Mr. Wallace and the unchallenged evidence of Mr. Ellington, I find that the driver and the passenger, namely the Defendant, were acting with a common intention to enter Solomon’s Grocery and to execute a burglary with the theft of the cash register.

¶ [78] Section 19 of the Penal Code Law reads: “When two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence.”

¶ [79] To put it another way, it is clear from the evidence that both the Defendant and the person not before the Court acted together when the driver drove the truck into the door of Solomon’s Grocery and then the Defendant entered the shop as a trespasser and stole the cash register.

¶ [80] In my view, the prosecution has proved participation by the Defendant with a common purpose. The Court finds that they took the Ford truck and they planned the criminal damage to the door of Solomon’s Grocery shop in order to steal the cash register and its contents.

¶ [81] PC Mendez gave clear, reliable and accurate evidence. He was consistent in examination in chief and in cross examination. He made the wise decision not to turn on the sirens. He saw the culprits leave the shop. He saw one with an object, and he was closely behind the men when the other man, without
the object, ran right and down towards the Annex and Eastern Avenue. PC Mendez’s evidence is corroborated by PC Bowen, who chased the man without the object down the lane off Diaz Lane, until he lost him.

¶ [82] PC Mendez took the sensible decision to chase the man with the object and although the man was out of his sight for 3 or 4 seconds, he kept up the chase.

¶ [83] Given the fact that the cash register was found in the area close to Wahoo Close, the inescapable inference is that the Defendant tried to hide the cash register while still trying to run away from PC Mendez in order to escape detection.

¶ [84] PC Mendez, with the aid of his flashlight, was able to chase the Defendant to Lucky Apartments and on to Luna Lane, and eventually apprehend the Defendant.

¶ [85] The Defendant’s evidence that he waited for 15 minutes after the car was crashed is clearly untrue. I find that the Defendant’s evidence that they were just driving around when the driver suddenly said “brace yourself” and then crashed into Solomon’s Grocery is not consistent with the evidence of Mr. Wallace or Mr. Ellington. Mr. Wallace said he heard the truck racing, from some distance away, up Mary Street, and making a sharp turn into Solomon’s Grocery. He then saw the Defendant spring into action by entering Solomon’s Grocery. And, Mr. Ellington’s evidence is that it was only within seconds of hearing the “loud bang” across the road at Solomon’s Grocery that he saw someone on the hood of the truck with a cash register in his hand.

¶ [86] The Defendant was inconsistent, evasive and was not a witness of truth. I have no difficulty in accepting PC Mendez as a witness of truth. He gave his evidence in a clear and forthright manner.

¶ [87] At the scene he persisted in chasing and ultimately apprehending the man whom he saw go off with the object from behind Solomon’s Grocery store, and that man turned out to be the Defendant – a person whom PC Mendez had known for approximately three years. If it had not been for PC Mendez’s speed of thought and speed of action, the Defendant would have got away.

¶ [88] It is not uncommon for objects stolen in a burglary not to contain fingerprint or DNA evidence. I therefore do not find this absence of DNA or fingerprints materially weakens the case for the prosecution.

¶ [89] I remind myself that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. It is for the prosecution to prove that the Defendant is guilty, and further, it is never for the Defendant to have to prove his innocence.

¶ [90] I also remind myself that the prosecution must prove the Defendant’s guilt to a high standard of proof, namely, that I must be satisfied that the Defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of the charge of damage to property in that he, with another person unknown, without lawful excuse, willfully damaged Solomon’s Grocery at a cost of CI$23,000.00. Further, I must be satisfied that the Defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of burglary in that he, with another person unknown, entered as a trespasser, Solomon’s Grocery, and stole a cash register belonging to Louis Solomon.

¶ [91] Based on the clear and reliable evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution as well as the highly unreliable and inconsistent evidence of the Defendant, I am entirely satisfied and sure that the Defendant is guilty on both Counts.

¶ [92] Accordingly, I find the Defendant guilty of Count 1, namely damage to property, and Count 2, burglary. Dated this the 16th day of August 2011 Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Quin Judge of the Grand Court