Charges against two policemen for conspiring in an $8m robbery against a Chinese national were thrown out yesterday when it was found that the requisite fiat had not been inscribed on the case jacket.
A fiat is a legally binding command or decision entered on the court record. It is now unclear what will become of the intended charge against constables Julian Smartt, and Winston Williams.
They both appeared before Chief Magistrate (ag) Sherdel Isaacs-Marcus at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court where they were charged jointly with conspiracy to commit robbery.
It is alleged that on November 29, while at Prashad Nagar, Georgetown, they conspired together along with two others to rob Chinese national, Qi Lin, of $8 million in cash while armed with a gun.
Additionally, the two men faced separate charges. It is alleged that Smartt on the day in question at the Prashad Nagar police outpost, while being an agent employed by the state, attempted to obtain $150,000 from Qi Lin for the offence of use of a cellphone while operating a motor vehicle, and operating an unlicensed motor vehicle and an uninsured motor vehicle.
It is also alleged that Williams, while being an agent employed by the state, attempted to obtain from Qi Lin for himself, the sum of $30,000 as a reward for having the aforementioned charges forgone.
They both pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The prosecution objected to bail based on the fact that the duo are members of the Guyana Police Force who took an oath. The objection was also based on the seriousness of the charges and the attached penalties. The court was also asked to consider the amount Qi Lin would have lost due to the incident.
The prosecution stated that the police are in possession of CCTV footage and also have proof that the accused were in contact with two other suspects before and after the offence was committed.
The court was also informed that the prosecution was in possession of witness statements and that both Smartt and Williams were positively identified.
The court heard that on the day in question, the two police officers arrested Lin and took him to the Prashad Nagar police outpost where he was cautioned, charged and sent away, however no entries of the alleged offences were entered into the station diary.
Smartt was represented by attorney-at-law Patrice Henry, who in his application for bail, revealed that Smart who is 30-years-old has been working with the Guyana Police Force for the past four years. Henry proceeded to ask the magistrate to inquire whether the prosecution was in possession of the fiat and whether or not the file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) before charges were brought against the defendants.
He also asked the court to take judicial notice of the time that the defendants spent in jail, calling it an attack on their constitutional rights. The defendants were said to have been incarcerated from November 29th to December 5th.
Henry said that none of the grounds that the prosecution objected to were issues that would cause the court not to grant his client bail, as he is not a flight risk and will abide by the bail conditions. Williams was represented by attorney-at-law, Jevon Cox, who told the court that in addition to Henry’s application for bail, his client Williams is not a flight risk and has nothing before the court that would cause it to deprive his client of bail.
During its rebuttal, the prosecution informed the court that both Williams and Smartt had received discharge letters from the force. However, Henry argued that it was an uncalled for move since both defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The police prosecutor, Quincy Lacon, told the magistrate that the prosecution maintained its objections.
Smartt’s attorney told the court that both defendants were charged as civilians and referred to the charges as erroneous.
There was an adjournment to enable the prosecution to contact their office on the fiat. The magistrate later inquired whether the DPP had advised on the case file and the prosecution responded with a request for a short date in relation to the fiat being done and presented to the court. The magistrate then stated that the fiat is supposed to be on file and since the prosecution was without one it was a violation of the legislation. This resulted in the matter being thrown out.
A statement earlier in the day from the police had said that detectives are in possession of evidence showing constable Smartt taking the suspects to the crime scene. After the robbery was committed, Smartt and Williams (both of whom were on motorcycles and in uniform) were seen escorting the suspects to an area known as Rasville. Both ranks were promptly arrested and questioned by investigators. Efforts are ongoing to arrest the principal offenders, the police said.
A file was prepared and sent to the Police Legal Advisor (PLA) Mandel Moore, who advised that, based on the facts, there is sufficient evidence to charge both accused jointly with the offence of ‘Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, to wit Robbery Under Arms, contrary to Section 34 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, Chapter 8:01.
The PLA also advised that Constable Smartt and Constable Williams be interdicted from duty.
