Jury finds two guilty of stealing jewellery

By Pauline Waruguru
Nevis Reporter, SKNVibes.com

~~Adz:Right~~CHARLESTOWN, Nevis – WILSON JONES of Fountain and Leo Herbert of Cotton Ground were on Friday (Nov. 7) found guilty by a jury of stealing jewellery to the value of EC$30 000, the property Idona Browne, the Manager of Foundation for Social Development in Nevis.

The offence was committed on Independence Day, September 19, 2007 while Browne had left her home to attend a function at Oualie Beach Resort.

While Jones was represented by Chesley Hamilton, Herbert was unrepresented and Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Paulina Hendrickson led the prosecution team.

Trial judge, Her Ladyship Ianthea Leigertwood-Octave ordered a social inquiry report on the convicted men, after which she will decide on their sentence on Thursday, November 20.

 In her address to the jury, the DPP submitted that Browne had identified some of the jewellery stolen as hers after they were found by the police at Herbert’s residence. She said that upon his arrest, Herbert had directed the police to a certain area in his yard where they could retrieve the stolen jewellery, but his grandmother, Cornelius Herbert, who was a witness in the case, said he had directed them to the wrong place. Cornelius said the police had found them elsewhere after gaining permission to search the premises. Browne had also identified jewellery given by Jones to his ex-girlfriend Aurelia Lawrence and to her friend Denise Kelly as her own. 

Hendrickson told the court that Lawrence and Kelly had not contradicted each other when they gave evidence. She also said that Jones had admitted giving the jewellery to the women, who he told that he had obtained them by gambling. 

But Hamilton challenged the DPP. He said Browne had testified that she did find a broken window with blood spots on its screens and also shoe prints in her home. And he argued that no evidence was brought to court by the prosecution indicating that fingerprints were taken, and no photographs of the shoe prints were taken. Hamilton also submitted that Lawrence and Kelly had not been arrested for receiving stolen goods.

During cross-examination, Jones told the court that the person, who had given him the jewellery he later gave to Lawrence and Kelly, had told him that he was seeking to sell the items to assist a woman who desperately needed money to pay for her child’s college education.

Jones told Her Ladyship that the jewellery were “safe”.

Hamilton described the collection of the evidence as a “fishing expedition”. He said they were not facts to confirm that Jones broke into Browne’s residence. The judge however told the jury that the prosecution was relying on the doctrine of possession: “There was a break-in and soon after a person is found with stolen goods, it is open for a jury to convict the accused.”

The judge also told the jury that there was evidence connecting Herbert with house breaking. She said Browne had identified the stolen jewellery two weeks after the break-in and noted that the DPP had based her submission on “doctrine of recent possession”. 

Her Ladyship also told the jury that the prosecution team failed to submit any evidence to prove that the items stolen were in Herbert’s physical possession. She added that stolen items must be in an accused person’s physical possession with his/her knowledge. The judge also reminded the jury of the exchange of the jewellery between Jones and the person whom he claimed gave them to him.

After receiving the judge’s direction, the jury retired, and on return to the courtroom announced that Herbert was guilty of receiving and Jones guilty of house breaking and larceny.