Was the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service (RCIPS) too eager to prosecute because of the high profile nature of the robbery? The robbery of a premier bank right in the heart of George Town, the capital of the Cayman Islands and witnessed by overseas tourists.

James McLean, Christopher Myles and Kevin Bowen were accused of conspiracy in connection with the daylight robbery of Scotiabank  & Trust (Cayman) Ltd. on Cardinal Avenue on May 3^rd 2012.

Three masked men, two appeared to be holding firearms, entered the bank, threatened staff and customers and then left with an undisclosed sum in a car driven by a fourth man.

The fourth man, bank robbery driver David Parchment, pleaded guilty and identified the other three men as the perpetrators of the crime.

Warning bells started going off in my head that all was not well with the police case when McLean, Myles and Bowen were not charged with robbery or possession of imitation firearms. They were charged only with the conspiracy crime.

Next we learn the Crown’s whole case rested on one witness – Parchment – with no corroborating evidence.

Parchment first told the police the car was stolen but a tourist film of the robbery showed the getaway’s car road fee sticker that pointed to him actually owning the vehicle.

Parchment said he had been told he was to be paid $4,000 for the use of him and his car but was only paid $1,600 by the three men he had now fingered.

The case was heard before judge only, Justice Alex Henderson, and legal arguments commenced last week before the judge could even cross – examine Parchment. The arguments also included the failure of the Crown and the RCIPS to disclose documents.

Judge Henderson told the Crown on Tuesday (26) he had concerns over their key witness. He said it was dangerous to convict someone on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. An accomplice who had already pleaded guilty might be tempted, he said, to shade his evidence in the hope that his cooperation would be rewarded.

The judge threw out the identification evidence. Why?

The three accused appeared in PRISON UNIFORM in a lineup. No one else was in the line.  Haven’t the police here in Cayman even watched a crime drama on television? There are many of them that show a police lineup and a witness trying to point a finger at the suspects and the persons in the lineup are all dressed in similar attire – if not the same! I suppose if the three men had executed the robbery in a clown’s costume they would have been wearing just that in the lineup?

Not surprisingly the Judge concluded the selection of the three men was prejudiced.

Justice Henderson then cross-examined Parchment. He noted Parchment had drug convictions and had told him he was using ganja at the time of the robbery. This raised questions on the accuracy of his testimony. He found nothing in what Parchment had told him that was exceptional. It was just a recounting of an uncorroborated narrative that may or may not be true.

After the Crown had said there was no other supporting evidence the judge found all three defendants “Not Guilty”.

Surely the Crown could see their case was as weak as ditch water before going ahead with this case?  Even the taped ‘evidence’ from Parchment had been revealed as being different. There had been a break between the taping and the accounts differed from before and after the break.

So why on earth were the alleged bank robbers even brought to court?