Bail given to man charged with Scotia bank robbery
Justice Carol Bestwick granted David Emmanuel Parchment’s application for bail in the sum of $30,000 with one surety and conditions on 11th September 2012 in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands.
Parchment is charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, on the 2nd and 3rd May 2012 he conspired with three named Co-Defendants to commit robbery at Scotia bank Ltd., in George Town, Grand Cayman. All the alleged perpetrators were arrested and remanded in custody. Bail was not granted to the Parchment, but was offered to the others charged for the same offence. Parchment was now renewing his application for bail.
On the 3rd May 2012 three masked men entered a branch of Scotia bank Ltd. and Robbed the cashiers of cash. The vehicle used by the three men to flee the scene of the robbery was abandoned and was later found to be registered to Parchment.
Shavonda Watson, Parchment’s girlfriend, in a statement said she owned the vehicle but licensed it in the name of Parchment because she did not have a valid driver’s licence. Parchment drove the vehicle regularly she stated. Ms. Watson spoke of the Applicant’s whereabouts on the 3rd May 2012 and said that on that day she saw him between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., when he visited her at her workplace on a bicycle, to return what she knew to be the only key for the vehicle in question. She said she saw the Applicant again sometime after 1:00 p.m. and they spent the rest of that afternoon together.
On the morning of the 4th May, Parchment reported to the police that the vehicle had been stolen. When he and Ms. Watson were interviewed at the police station during the course of that report, he was arrested for suspicion of robbery.
On Friday the 8th June Parchment provided a caution statement to the police implicating three other accused persons as being part of planning the robbery at the bank. Parchment also stated that it was agreed with the other accused persons that he would receive a sum of money for the use of the car belonging to his girlfriend.
The Prosecution opposed Parchment’s application for bail and submitted that if released on bail, he would fail to surrender to custody and would obstruct the course of justice. The Prosecution argued that he had not paid regard to his obligations under previous grants of bail. They also submitted Parchment should remain in custody for his protection or welfare, in view of the fact that he has assisted the police in the investigations and may be at risk in his community.
Parchment has demonstrated that he may fail to surrender to custody, if left to his own devices. He had done so twice, though it was not clear whether reference to those 2 instances concerned one incident. In any event he was to have reported at the police station and when he did not, the police found him at his premises in an attic, which could only be accessed by climbing up a ladder, which was not in place.
Justice Beswick said, “The Prosecution will be relying on the evidence from Mr. Parchment to prosecute his co-defendants. It appears that there is some concern that, if released on bail, there may be interaction between the Applicant and his co-defendants, resulting in the prosecution being unable to present sufficient evidence against the men. That possibility does exist. However, the reality is that the co-defendants are on bail and there is now no readily apparent reason why the Applicant should be remanded in custody when his co-defendants enjoy freedom from custody.
“That situation, in and of itself may well result in the Applicant not cooperating to provide evidence for the prosecution because of a perception that he has not been treated fairly by the system.
“The police are said to be concerned about this Applicant’s safety once he comes out into the community. Neither the Applicant nor his mother shares this concern.”
A Risk Assessment Report indicated that neither Parchment or his family were under threat.
“The current girlfriend of the Applicant has been visiting with him regularly at HMPS Northward,” the Judge added. “There have been no negative reports concerning the interaction between the Applicant and his girlfriend, and the police do not oppose such a continued relationship although she is known to be friendly with some or all of the co-accused persons.
“The Applicant would have been in custody one year by the date of trial and there is the possibility that the sentence could be anywhere between non-custodial and custodial as he has assisted police investigations and is admitting his guilt in committing the serious offence of conspiracy to robbery.
“The Prosecution has not established why the Defendant should not be on bail. All the reasons for objection can be addressed by appropriate conditions being attached to an offer of bail. It is my view that the Applicant should not remain incarcerated whilst the others, equally charged, have received the benefit of bail.
“Accordingly, I order that bail be offered in the sum of $30,000 with one surety with the following conditions:
The defendant is:
(i) To live at home at 57 Miss Daisy Lane, West Bay;
(ii) To be indoors at his home under curfew from 7pm to 7 am;
iii) To be electronically monitored as soon as a monitor becomes available;
(iv) To report to West Bay Police Station everyday between 4pm and 6 p.m.;
(v) Not to travel outside of the jurisdiction – Stop Order to be placed at the ports;
(vi) To confirm that a notation has been made in the system and records of the enforcement section of the Cayman Islands Immigration Department and the Governor’s Office that the Defendant/Applicant ‘s travel documents, namely the British Overseas Territory citizen passport issued to the Defendant has been lost and has been cancelled/revoked and that the Caymanian passport has been cancelled.
(viii) To have no contact or association with co-accused or his or her relatives or known friends of the co-accused, excluding Shevanda Watson, whilst she remains his girlfriend or companion.
