Manchester security guard out on bail after allegedly robbing bank customer

A MANCHESTER security guard, who allegedly conspired with others to rob a man of a knapsack containing approximately $14 million, after assisting him at the bank, has been released on $900,000 bail following an unsuccessful attempt by the director of public prosecutions (DPP) to revoke his bail.

Christopher Lyn, who was also caught with an illegal weapon following the alleged incident, was offered bail on May 3 in the Manchester Parish Court on charges of robbery with aggravation, conspiracy to robbery, possession of a prohibited weapon, possession of a firearm with intent to injure and unauthorised possession of ammunition.

The Crown appealed the bail offer but the Court of Appeal threw out the application after the State prosecuting arm blundered by failing to provide the court and Lyn with a written notice within 24 hours after the bail hearing.

Pursuant to Section 10 of the Bail Act, the prosecution is required to give oral notice of its intent to a decision to grant bail to a defendant at the conclusion of the hearing and within 24 hours of that said hearing must provide the court and the defendant a written notice of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal in the recently published judgment said: “There is no dispute that in the instant appeal, the Crown did not give written notice of appeal to the parish court and the respondent within the 24-hour deadline.

Consequently, the judge refused the DPP’s application after accepting Lyn’s lawyer, Ashford Meikle’s main argument that the DPP had not complied with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 10(3) of the Bail Act.

The 32-year-old accused, otherwise known as ‘Red Banks’ of Eden Street, New Green, in the parish, was arrested on April 5 after he was reportedly held at a restaurant in the Mandeville with a prohibited item.

Prior to that, it was reported that on March 7, Lyn plotted the robbery of a man who he had offered to transport to the bank to complete a transaction.

According to reports, the complainant completed his transaction and left the establishment with Lyn, who then took him to Wint Road. On reaching that location, the complainant was reportedly pounced upon by two men armed with guns.

The complainant was reportedly robbed of the knapsack with the cash by Lyn and his accomplices who then reportedly stole a motorcycle and escaped with Lyn.

The matter was reported and Lyn was later charged after he was positively identified during an identification parade.

According to the judgment, the accused was offered bail despite objection from the prosecution that he was likely to abscond if granted bail as he could not be found more than a month after the alleged robbery.

But the parish judge, noting Lyn’s constitutional right to bail, stated that the ground proffered did not appear to be a sound basis for refusal for bail, as the prosecution did not outline what steps had been taken to find Lyn. Furthermore, the parish judge said there was no allegation that he attempted to flee the island and that he was ultimately held in a public place.

MERITS OF THE APPEAL

The DPP, in appealing the judge’s actions, contended that the decision of the parish court judge should be revoked as there were substantial grounds for believing that the respondent, if released on bail, would commit an offence and the decision was contrary to the “public interest and the policy behind the Firearms Act 2022”.

The DPP also indicated in its appeal that the parish judge exercised her discretion improperly in light of the nature and seriousness of the offences and the strength of the prosecution’s case.

However, during the appeal hearing, Senior Deputy DPP, Jeremy Taylor, KC, conceded that the written notice was late but argued that the legislative provision was written in mandatory terms and that “the failure by the Crown to adhere to the strict and demanding (and ridiculous) time limits imposed by Parliament” meant that this court could “determine the appeal on procedural grounds without even considering the merits”.

Taylor, while noting that the statute did not make provision for an extension of time to be given if good cause is shown, however asked the court to hear the appeal on the merit “in the overriding interests of justice of the arguments”.

The appellate judge complied but admitted that it was not necessary or appropriate to consider the merits of the appeal.

Arising from this case, the Court of Appeal suggested that the parish court, in instances where similar appeals are indicated, remand the accused for the period of time within which a written notice of appeal is to be filed by the Crown and also for a mentioned date to be set after the expiration of the 24-hour period to ascertain whether the Crown has met the deadline and for the necessary orders to be made.

The Court of Appeal judge said the Crown should also clearly provide details as to its compliance with the statutory requirements in Section 10 of the Bail Act.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com