A new trial is slated to begin later on Monday for the duo accused of stealing $389,000 from the Bank of St. Vincent and the Grenadines four years ago.
Fitzroy Douglas, a 31-year-old mechanic, and Yvonne Patterson, a 50-year-old former clerk at the bank, are alleged to have stolen the money from the bank between June and July 23, 2020, in Kingstown.
Their trial was abandoned earlier this year — with just one prosecution witness left to testify — after Bertie Pompey, who was presiding, left the magistracy.
Last month, Patterson’s lawyer, Grant Connell, and Maxron Holder, holding for Douglas’ lawyer, Michael Wyllie, argued before Senior Magistrate Colin John at the Serious Offences Court that the proceedings be stayed indefinitely as an abuse of process.
However, John ruled against the lawyers and set aside Monday and Tuesday for the trial.
The lawyers said they would be ready for the trial and the magistrate told the prosecutor, Inspector of Police Renrick Cato, that there had been a significant delay and the court expects the trial to be completed on Tuesday — Oct. 22.
John ordered Cato to make sure that things were in place for all witnesses to be available.
Cato said there are about 20 witnesses in the matter.
In asking the court not to order a new trial, the lawyers said there had been an inordinate delay and raised issues of whether the defendants could get a fair trial.
The prosecution, however, asked that the trial proceed, arguing that the accused could get a fair trial.
Cato further said a new trial would not bring the integrity of the court into disrepute, as the defence had argued.
John said the test the court had to satisfy was whether the defendants could have a fair trial notwithstanding the delay.
He said that if a fair trial could take place, the court would have to determine whether a new trial would offend justice and propriety.
The magistrate said that in coming to his decision, he read the submission by the defence and the Magistrate Court Pre-Trial Time Limits Guidelines 2003, quoted by Holder, which says such matters should be disposed of within six months.
“… the guidelines say the magistrate may in the determination of an offence take the course of action that is just and reasonable, having regard to the circumstances of a particular case,” John said.
He said there are facts in issue and those that are not in issue.
Not in issue was that all sides — the prosecution, defence and the court — had caused the delay, albeit to varying extents.
Among the facts in issue was whether the proceedings should be stayed primarily because of the delay.
The magistrate said the offence was a serious one, adding that all offences that affect someone are serious.
“With no disrespect to Jax or Coreas, it is not a case where someone went into Coreas and stole a tube of toothpaste,” he said, referring to two department stores in Kingstown.
“This is a case where someone allegedly went into a financial institution and stole in excess of $300,000,” John said, adding that by all accounts the case is very serious.
He said the court must satisfy the question of whether the defendants could get a fair trial despite the delay and whether the integrity of the criminal justice system would come into disrepute because of this trial.
The magistrate said the court had concluded that there were sufficient checks and balances and sufficient mechanisms in place for the defendants to receive a fair trial and it would not bring the court or the judicial system into disrepute by going to trial in the matter.
Darn alleged thief.
The trial of the defendants certainly does not offend or derail the course of justice. It is in the public’s interest that the law must not only be done but must be seen to have done . Regina v Sussex clearly addresses this saga. When it is alleged that because of one’s privileged position as an employee of the bank can get away with this type of alleged crime. It is sending the wrong signals to society as a whole and does not act as a deterrent. It is a worthy assumption that the penalty must fit the crime.