Birthday in court: demand 5 years for two robberies

POSTED: 09/20/12 12:41 PM

GREAT BAY – Gleivon Daniel C. celebrated his 23rd birthday yesterday with an appearance in the Court in First Instance to face two robbery charges. Judge Tamara Tijhuis congratulated the defendant with his birthday, but prosecutor mr. Georges van den Eshof later demanded 5 years imprisonment and 2 years of probation against him. Of the demand, 1 year is suspended. Judge Tijhuis will pronounce her verdict on October 10.

The defendant is charged with a robbery that took place on March 18 of last year near the Le Petit Chateau brothel on Pond Island. Together with Hector Bienvenido C. the defendant allegedly robbed J.A. Sauceda Ortiz, a crew member on a cruise ship, that day of $1,200 and a gold chain.

On April 4 of this year Gleivon C. allegedly robbed a man of his gold necklace near the office of Sheriff Security on Coralita Road. Since that date he has been in preventive custody.

The 2011 robbery has a long court history. The two defendants first appeared before a judge on June 29 of last year. That day the case was postponed to investigate why a report about a so-called Oslo-confrontation (whereby defendants appear in a line-up for recognition purposes) had not been included in the police report. It appeared that the officers who handled the case, a 30-year-old member of the Marechaussee and a 43-year-old police officer, had forgotten all about the Oslo-confrontation. The victim had been in a hurry (he had to return to his cruise ship) and he promised to come back two weeks later to sign a statement – but he never did. The officers were buried under other work and forgot about the case. The court declared the prosecution inadmissible, a decision that was later voided by the Common Court of Justice.

Yesterday only Gleivon C. appeared in court – in the meantime charged with a second robbery.

Prosecutor Georges van den Eshof told the court that he considers the March 18 robbery legally and convincingly proven. “You offered the victim a taxi ride first and when he refused you came out of the car with a gun.” The prosecutor also considered that necklace robbery on April 4 proven. He demanded 5 years imprisonment, with 1 year suspended and 2 years of probation. The time the defendant has already spent behind bars will be deducted from the time he still has to serve if Judge Tijhuis sentences him on October 10.

“The Oslo-confrontation took place shortly after the robbery last year,” attorney Geert Hatzmann told the court. “The plaintiff did not recognize my client as one of the robbers.”

The attorney pointed out that his client had been arrested a mere three quarters of an hour after the robbery. “Where is the $1,200, where is the firearm. They were not found on my client and they were not found in or near his house either. That is not remarkable, because the police did not do a house search. But that the Oslo-confrontation was not in the case file is a deadly sin. The police investigation was a clumsy piece of work.”

mr. Hatzmann asked the court to acquit his client for lack of evidence.

For the robbery on April 4 there is also no evidence, C.’s second attorney Safira Ibrahim said. “The necklace he allegedly robbed was not found on him or in the vicinity of where he was stopped,” she said, adding that her client had been unexpectedly attacked by an unknown man while he was walking along Coralita Road. “The recognition by the victim took place based on a single photo-confrontation. While the victims aid that he had seen his attacker well, he was unable to give a specific description.”

Prosecutor van den Eshof maintained that there is sufficient proof for the April 4 robbery, because an employee of Sheriff Security had pursued the robber immediately after the crime. “There is an unbroken chain of pursuit,” the prosecutor pointed out.

Did you like this? Share it:
Birthday in court: demand 5 years for two robberies by

Comments are closed.