The two men accused of robbing two Avon employees of in excess of $6 million were yesterday admitted to bail in the sum of $250,000 each when they appeared before acting Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry.
The allegation against Sherwin Barrow and Adrian Joe is that on July 1 at Georgetown, being armed with a gun, they robbed Donald Joseph of $2.2 million, property of Beauty and Home System Inc (Avon).
Allegedly on the same day being armed with a gun also, the two are accused of robbing Gavin McKenzie of $4.7 million, also the property of Avon.
They were not required to plead to the joint charges of armed robbery charges when they appeared at the George-town Magistrates’ Court.
In presenting the prosecution’s facts of the case, Police Sergeant Lionel Harvey told the court that on the day in question, the virtual complainants were making their way to a city bank to deposit the money when they were held at gunpoint by the defendants and relieved of the cash.
According to Harvey, the defendants approached the complainants who were in possession of the respective sums belonging to their employer outside their Camp Street office.
The court heard that Barrow approached the VCs with the gun and relieved them of the cash after which he sped away with Joe who was waiting on a motorcycle.
Harvey said the matter was reported to the police and the defendants were arrested and charged after police investigations were conducted.
Attorneys Vic Puran and James Bond who represented the accused made a vigorous and successful application for the men to be granted their pre-trial liberty.
The lawyers argued that since their clients were never placed on an identification parade (ID) and as admitted by the prosecution, there is only information gathered to rely on, the accused should be admitted to bail.
According to Puran, the police have seen it fit to charge the two accused based on mere “information gathered”. This, he argued, is not enough.
Both lawyers argued that their clients are eager to clear their names of the allegations levelled against them as they are innocent and will return to stand trial if admitted to bail.
The prosecution objected to bail being granted, citing the seriousness and prevalence of the offence.
After listening to both sides, the magistrate granted the men bail in the sum of $250,000 each. She emphasized that the amount of bail granted reflected the seriousness of the offense.
The matter will be called again on July 20 for reports.
