Ammunition case thrown out by judge

| 17/08/2012

(CNS): A visiting judge concluded this week that the crown's evidence against a defendant for possession of three shotgun cartridges was so weak it could not conceivably support a guilty verdict. Justice Carol Beswick said there was no case for David Ebanks of West Bay to answer as she stopped the trial and entered a verdict of not guilty. The crown had claimed that Ebanks was in possession of the cartridges because they were found wrapped in a sock in the pocket of a pair of jeans on which his DNA was found. The jeans were in room of a house in Cinder Lane, West Bay, which police believed was occupied by Ebanks.

However, the judge found that there was no evidence that this was his room or that he had ever touched the cartridges.

The court heard that the defendant was one of several men who lived in the house and there was no evidence presented by the crown that Ebanks was the occupant of the room in which the ammunition was found. The judge also noted that his DNA was not on the cartridges and that the police had failed to carry out any fingerprint analysis of the items found during the search.

“The prosecution evidence falls short of proof that this defendant had the ammunition in his personal possession or knowingly had custody of the ammunition,” Justice Beswick ruled, noting that at its highest the evidence was insufficient for a jury to properly convict. Sitting alone as the trial judge, she said she had to discharge her duties under the law and stop the case. The judge found that there was no evidence, direct or inferential that the defendant knew anything about the cartridges.

Ebanks was arrested after a police operation at a property in Cinder Lane in February of this year. He was one of several men who were there at the time of the early morning operation. When the police arrived at around 6am, Ebanks was found wearing just underwear in the passage of the house but he was not in the room where the ammunition had been discovered.

The prosecution's case was that Ebanks stayed in the room simply because his DNA was found on the jeans and because there was an absence of female clothing. From there, the prosecutors drew the conclusion that Ebanks had possession of the ammunition and filed charges against him that could have resulted in ten years jail time.

The judge, however, concluded  that with no evidence to support the case and Ebanks was released by the court.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Crime

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anonymous says:

    Justice is served! good thing we arent convicting people based on the publics opinions. Welcome home D

  2. Anonymous says:

    Does the Legal Department not have something better to spend its time on than 3 shotgun cartridges found wrapped in a sock? What an absolute waste of everyone's time. I believe the judge made the right decision.

    • Rick says:

      It takes just one to kill you. One more to kill your child. The other to kill your mom. Is that sufficient to 'waste' your time on?

      • Anonymous says:

        Does that mean that they ought to charge your grandma for it?  There was no case against this person.  What part don't you understand?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Is this just another case of many where the Legal Department once again failed to pay their brain bill on time?

  4. NeoSurvivor says:

    Good on you Justice Beswick.   This seems an otherwise waste of time and money to prosecute.   Even if his DNA had been identified with the shotgun shells…………  shells with no weapon?   Move on.   Plenty of real criminals out there to deal with.  

  5. Anonymous says:

    Is this system for real?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Does the legal dept. not have a checklist for whether or not a case makes it to court? Unreal the cases that they lose at the most basic stages!! Are they held accountable at all?

    • Anonymous says:

      Perhaps high up on that checklist should be:

      PROPER POLICE INVESTIGATION??????

      Just sayin'

  7. Anonymous says:

    Isn't this why RCIPS have been trying to force through major reforms in the firearms laws that would have effectively made anyone in these circumstances (and any owner or landlord of the property) automatically guilty of a criminal offence?

     

     

     

    • The Beaver says:

      No, no, no…  I think you're all confused.  I believe it's the Attorney General who has been trying to push through such hairbrained schemes.  The RCIPS are the ones who mostly sit in their cars all day and watch the criminals run away.  You know, the ones who leave evidence behind, get stinking drunk in various pubs around Grand Cayman, and make a general nuisance of themselves.  The Beaver

  8. Rick says:

    AWHOAA