Eight Young Men Remanded in Dodds Following Allegations of Violent Disorder and Robbery

Allegations of violent disorder and robbery landed eight young men on remand at Dodds on Tuesday, despite submissions by their attorneys that they were fit and proper candidates for bail.

Nico Nathaniel Perch, 21, Tavian Victor Jyair Eastmond, 17, and Kingaziz Carter, 20, all of Risk Road, Fitts Village, St James; Tarrell Andre Cumberbatch, 17, of Free Hill, Black Rock, St Michael; Keshawm Omar Yearwood, 16, of Thompson Road, Wavell Avenue, Black Rock, St Michael; Nathan Kenan Daemon Gibbons, 17, of Yearwood Road, Black Rock, St Michael; Shakeil Akeem Connell, 29, of Fryer’s Well, Checker Hall, St Lucy; and Darique Devon Carrington, 25, of Berbice No 2 Fitts Village, St James are accused of committing two indictable offences.

They allegedly robbed Paul Whittaker of three chains, a cellular phone and a bag, with a total approximate value of $4 900, on August 23, 2023. They are further charged that on the same date, together with other persons, they used unlawful violence against Whittaker and their conduct was such that it would cause a person present at the scene to fear for their personal safety.

The men could not enter pleas to any of the charges in the District ‘A’ Magistrates’ Court after they were read by Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes.

Sergeant Randolph Boyce objected to bail for all the accused.

He pointed out that Carrington, Connell, and Eastmond were already on bail in connection with other serious indictable matters, and it was the prosecution’s fear that they “may find” themselves reoffending.

Sergeant Boyce also grounded his objections on the strength of the evidence, “in that property was recovered” and that there was also “footage of the alleged altercation”. He also pointed to the nature and seriousness of the offences, adding that while it was an allegation at this stage, robbery was “very, very serious” and the police were still searching for another person in relation to the matter.

“The court should consider the complainant in this matter . . . . We believe that these gentlemen need to cool off . . . because we believe they would interfere with the complainant,” the prosecutor stated, adding that while the other accused did not have any prior matters, there were concerns they would interfere with witnesses.

However, attorney-at-law Angella Mitchell-Gittens, who represents Gibbons, Carter and Connell, urged the court to disregard the objections that her clients “may interfere” with witnesses or the complainant and that the police were still searching for another person.

“I don’t understand how this can be an objection for bail . . . . I am asking the court to disregard that objection . . . . We are a court of law, a court of evidence; we are not bound by feelings . . . they may do this, they may do that . . . . The undisputed fact is a fight involving young men broke out outside a strip club during the course of which somebody is saying that they are missing things. No one is charged with assault or wounding . . . . The factual matrix is important,” Mitchell-Gittens argued.

The defence attorney also submitted that the charges were not so serious that her clients should be denied bail at this time as the two charges stemmed from one set of circumstances.

“The denial of bail ought not to be a punishment . . . . My clients are all Bajans with fixed places of abode,” she said, adding that Carter and Gibbons were not known to the court and had no pending charges. Connell, she admitted, was on bail but had been adhering to all his conditions.

In his submissions, Senior Counsel Michael Lashley who represents Perch argued that the prosecution could not prove that his client had interfered or would interfere with witnesses or the complainant and he asked the court not to take that submission into consideration.

He insisted that his client was a proper candidate for bail as he met all the criteria and would adhere to any conditions imposed.

Attorney-at-law Simon Clarke, who represents Carrington, adopted some of the submissions made by Mitchell-Gittens and Lashley.

He said while his client was on bail for a serious matter, he had no prior convictions and had been adhering to all conditions imposed. Clarke added that many of the grounds for

objections put forward by the prosecution could not be substantiated.

Meanwhile, defence lawyer Ken Mason also strenuously argued for bail for his clients Yearwood and Eastmond, adding that the prosecutor’s call for a cooling-off period could not be determined by the prosecution and was not a part of the Bail Act.

He, too, said his clients were proper candidates for bail and were willing to comply with any conditions.

After hearing the submissions, however, Chief Magistrate Weekes pointed out that robbery of any kind was a serious allegation.

“Robbery by eight accused . . . must be a serious thing . . . . The nature of the charge where you have an allegation of eight men robbing one man has to be seen as very serious. At this time, this court will not exercise its discretion in favour of the eight accused. Remanded until October 3 on both charges,” he ruled.