Bread roll swindler walks free after owning up

| 16/12/2014

(CNS): A man who was originally sentenced to seven years in jail over a number of charges relating to a $300,000 bread roll con but who was bailed following a successful appeal will not go back to prison, despite being convicted for a second time after pleading guilty. Acting Grand Court Judge Justice Malcolm Swift explained that because of the special circumstances in the case, despite the seriousness of the offence and lack of mitigation, he would not send 49-year-old Dave Bryan back to jail considering the double jeopardy principle and because he had already served almost three years. Some of the sentences imposed on Bryan after trial in 2012 were consecutive as they were separate, albeit related, offences and one was committed while on bail.

The judge said that his decision to run the sentences concurrently following the defendant's guilty plea was not a green light for other offenders to think they can commit more offences on bail and receive concurrent sentences. The decision related specifically to this case and the special circumstances of Bryan being released after almost three years in jail, he said.

Bryan, who is a Jamaican national, was a partner with West Bay opposition MLA Bernie Bush in Cayman Bakery and he had conned his partner, Bush’s wife, who did the accounts for the business, the firm's driver and the bakery's largest customer, Fosters Food Fair, over a period of almost 12 months, stealing more than US$300,000. Bryan had taken advantage of a weak system at Fosters and manipulated the invoices and documents relating to the bread, rolls and buns he delivered to the supermarket.

It wasn’t until one of the Fosters managers became suspicious about an invoice, which indicated such a large quantity of rolls and baked goods that the supermarket shelves couldnot even have held them all, that an internal investigation began and the crime came to light.

Bryan denied the crime in the first instance and had pointed the finger of blame at both the bakery’s own driver and the Fosters employee who received the deliveries. They were later found to be innocent but both lost their jobs anyway as a result of Bryan’s allegations.

Bryan was convicted after a trial but the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and ordered a retrial as they found that the crown had failed to tell the court that it had entered into a deal with the Fosters employee that ensured he was not prosecuted in connection with what were later revealed to be the false allegations. The appeal court then ordered a retrial.

Despite the technical point that caused the acquittal, the crown's evidence against Bryan was said to be overwhelming and after various discussion with the crown directions regarding the possible sentence, Bryan eventually owned up and pleaded guilty to certain related offences and made admissions about the con.

Then in what turned out to be a complex arrangement of sentences relating to a number of offences, the judge, following Bryan’s pleas, bundled the crimes together and imposed a sentence of three years and seven months after he gave Bryan a 25% discount for the late guilty plea ahead of the retrial. This sentence replaced all previous orders and the end result was that he would not go back to jail.

“Special circumstances apply in this case and the result is that the sentence is specific to this case and should not be used as a precedent in other cases, none of which are ever likely to replicate these facts,” the judge said, as he indicated the new term would replace the original seven year term.

Category: Crime

Comments (23)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    What do you expect? Look at the behaviour of the Honourable leaders of this country, and the police with criminal records themselves. This place is insane.

  2. Anonymous says:

    what a load of hogwash!!! when you do the crime……serve the time!!

    • Anonymous says:

      Between the police department and the judicial system they have enhanced a new career in crime. Them boys could not cach and put away a criminal if he confessed.

  3. Flour Power says:

    Someone should tell the armed bandits that there is a better way. Just swindle your employer or a business using a calculator. No gun required.

    • Anonymous says:

      Or swindle your Government out of millions of pounds by having offshore accounts in some tax haven…….

  4. Anonymous says:

    So we are convicting criminals but actually don't mean to? Please make sure he is on the next plane home!

  5. Anonymous says:

    The only "special circumstance" about his case is that he should have to serve more time.  He caused two persons to lose their jobs, lied about the con right up until the 11th hour and I did not hear about him having to pay back any money.  It seems that the judges also screwed up on how he was sentenced and so to protect themselves they just let him walk free.  What will happen next? Soon they will tell us that Santa Claus is not real.

  6. Anonymous says:

    $300,000 is a lot of dough.

  7. Ronnie says:

    So now he's unemployed and we pay to maintain him

  8. Anonymous says:

    what ?  found guilt 2 times is not good enough to go to jail ??

    please explain  to me how this works ?

    so 3 years of 7 is ok ?

  9. Anonymous says:



    They need to get him from around here now!!!  DEPORT ASAP AND ANYONE ELSE THAT DOES WRONG IF NOT FROM HERE.

     

     

  10. Anonymous says:

    Another Jamaican criminal set free. Wow!

    • Anonymous says:

      Stop say jamaica why do some local hate jamaica so much stop it

      • Anonymous says:

        Jamaicans are an easy target.  All was wonderful before the Jamaicans came here 300 years ago!

        • Anonymous says:

          Jamaica was an English colony being settled same as Cayman 300 years ago (or more accurately 350 years ago). The early settlers were not "Jamaicans" in any meaningful sense. They were Brits who happened to pass through Jamaica.    

      • Anonymous says:

        It dem Jacans dat 'ate Cayman so, yah nuh see how dem mash up de place?

  11. Anonymous says:

    Deportation order?

  12. Anonymous says:

    Once again, a too-easy sentence.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Why don't we just open the doors to the prison and throw away the keys. Clearly the legal system here is not interested in keeping criminals locked up. 

  14. Anonymous says:

    I am not sure I understand how serving the remainder of your original sentence from which you had been bailed constitutes double jeopardy. He was not being punished "again",  just serving the remainder of the original punishment.