Shakeem Smith as he was leaving the Magistrate's Court on December 3, 2012. Photo:VINO

The defendant’s attorney, Mr Richard Rowe expressed that his client’s activity had to be ‘pathological’ after Principal Crown Counsel Tiffany Scatliffe informed the court yesterday, February 13, 2013 that some 14 new charges and a possible additional complaint are to be laid against his client, who is already facing up to 10 charges of burglary related crimes.

Smith had previously pleaded guilty to several of the charges first placed before him in December 2012.

When the defendant made an appearance before Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards yesterday, he requested that all of the complaints be laid against Smith on another occasion.

“I would suggest a report date, so that we can consolidate all of the matters,” Rowe said, “otherwise, we might be doing the same thing three times. And you know Ma’am—he who does the same thing over and over and expects a different result is not what we are.”

Magistrate Richards expressed that she had seven of the fourteen new complaints before her.

Rowe suggested that by the next date he would have had sight of all of the complaints and would have had discussions with his client regarding a plea.

The suggestion was agreed to by the Principal Crown Counsel who told the court that she was informed that an additional complaint was to be laid against the defendant by Police today.

See previous story posted December 18, 2012:

UPDATE: Teen pleads guilty to burglary & criminal damage 

ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI – 19 year old Shakeem Smith of Fat Hogs Bay appeared before the Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards yesterday, December 17, 2012 and was informed that the Commissioner of Police had issued 5 new complaints against him. 

These were in addition to the 4 separate charges that were read to the defendant during his first appearance before the court on December 3, 2012. He pleaded guilty to the new charges as well as the ones previously read to him. Smith had not entered a plea to the charges that were read to him at his first court appearance.

A charge of criminal damage was also included among the 9 charges that were read to Smith. His attorney, Mr Richard Rowe, was present in this instance while the Crown was represented by Principal Crown Counsel Tiffany Scatliffe.

The defendant also chose to have his matters tried before the Magistrate’s court over the option of having the matters dealt with at the High Court when he was asked by Magistrate Richards.

Some of the complaints previously read to the defendant had to be amended as they involved the alleged entry of one dwelling place, but alleged robbery of different individuals that occupied the residences that were burglarised.

Smith was accused of being involved in a series of burglaries that were carried out over a two-year period. He mith was accused of robbing homes in Coopers Bay, Hope Hill, Fat Hogs Bay and Horsepath among others in addition to the St George’s Primary School.

Some of the items he pleaded guilty to stealing included cash, mobile phones, gold chains, gold rings and a laptop computer.

Ms Scatliffe suggested to the court that due to the volume of details incorporated in the charges, it was best to have the charges written up and agreed upon by the defence and prosecution and a submission made to the court. Both the defence counsel and Magistrate Richards were in agreement with this measure.

The defendant was once again told that the option of bail was not on offer and he would be remanded into custody until the date for mitigation in his case. He was given the date of February 13, 2013 to return to the court.

See previous article posted on December 3, 2012:

Teen denied bail on 4 charges of burglary

- 19 more charges likely to be made; defendant allegedly in custody for one week

ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI – Shakeem Smith, 19, of Fat Hogs Bay was placed before the Magistrate’s court yesterday December 3, 2012 on 4 separate charges of burglary. The charges were part of a series of burglaries that the defendant was suspected of being involved in over a two-year period.

The young man, who was unrepresented at the time of his arraignment, later told the court that he had been in Police custody for one week. He further explained that he did in fact have legal representation but was not allowed to call his lawyer before making his appearance in court.

Senior Crown Counsel Sarah Benjamin related that she was informed that the defendant had hoped to retain the counsel of attorney-at-law Mr Richard Rowe but there had been some difficulty, details of which she was unaware of at the time.

Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards told the defendant that burglary is generally treated as an indictable matter and therefore usually tried before the High Court. She further explained that it was the defendant’s prerogative to have the matter placed before the Magistrate’s court once he had consulted with legal representation. In the interim, the charges were read to him, but no plea was taken at the time.

According to the allegations that were read, on Tuesday October 31, 2010 one of the Virtual Complainants (VCs), Ms McKoy, had secured her residence, however, one of the windows on the northern end of the building was left partially open for ventilation. She returned to her residence on the same date at about 12:40 P.M. and discovered that the window screen was removed and her gold and orange coloured HP laptop valued at $700 was missing from her dining room table.

Following police investigations, Smith was informed of a report made in respect of the VC and he was cautioned. Under an audio interview, he denied all the allegations but volunteered his fingerprints. His prints were compared to prints lifted on the scene and allegedly matched prints found at the VC’s residence.

Another VC, Mr Smith, on July 23, 2012 at about 9 A.M. secured his home located at Coopers Bay and set his alarm system before departing. The alarm system was triggered about 2:40 P.M. of the same day; as a result the VC went to check on his premises. Upon arrival, he was in the process of checking the exterior section of his home when he saw a male lurking nearby in the driveway. The male then fled and the VC continued to check his home and discovered that a wooden door on the western side was damaged along with the alarm system. On the second and third level of the VC’s home, he saw footprints on the floor and subsequently made a report to police.

As part of their investigations, upon their arrival, the Police lifted fingerprints from the residence which were collected and analysed. A number of prints lifted from the VC’s home allegedly matched the defendant and on September 26, 2012 the defendant was arrested and an audio/video interview conducted with him. He denied burglarising the VC’s home. A complaint was later filed with respect to the VC.

On September 14, 2012 at about 11:45 A.M. another VC, Mr Hazel, secured his apartment and left; the VC had recently moved into the apartment. The VC then returned home and upon his arrival the screen for the kitchen window was on the floor with markings on the said window. He then entered his bedroom and saw one of the windows was left open and as a result he telephoned the East End Police Station (EEPS). A check of the apartment was made but nothing was discovered missing at the time. Police Constable Lewin of the EEPS then went to visit the VC’s home. During investigations prints were lifted from several places including an exterior glass window in the kitchen, living room and bedroom. The prints that were lifted from the VC’s home were compared to the defendant’s and a match was allegedly found with those taken from the VC’s home.

On November 7, 2012 an audio/video interview was held and the defendant was told of the report and cautioned. Under caution, he allegedly denied breaking into the VC’s home. On November 29, 2012 the defendant was formally charged with breaking and entering the VC’s home.

Yet another VC, Mr Smith, departed his home on September 14, 2012 at about 5 A.M. leaving several other family members at the home. The last family member left the home at about 12:20 P.M. on the said day and secured the premises before she did so. At about 4:30 P.M. on the same day the VC returned home and was informed by one of his children about certain things. He observed one of the windows to the eastern side was left open. He then went into his room where he met drawers pulled out and clothes scattered on the floor. The children’s room was discovered to be in the same condition. In his living room, it was discovered that a cable box valued at $150 was disconnected from the TV and revealed to be missing. It was later reported to the EEPS. Officers attended the scene and lifted prints from the external entrance of the door and an external glass window of one of the bedrooms.

On November 7 2012 an interview was conducted with the defendant where he was told of the report made in respect to the VC but allegedly denied breaking and entering the VC’s home and stealing the cable box. Analysis was done in respect to prints found at the VC’s home and compared with the defendant’s prints and they allegedly matched. As a result he was formally charged on November 27. The cable box and laptop were never recovered.

The prosecution objected to bail for the defendant noting that he was a person of interest in several other burglaries throughout the country from October 2010 through September 2012. It was the understanding of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that at least a further 19 charges will be laid and the defendant is wanted for questioning in same. It was unclear how many of the 19 he would be needed for at the time but in the instances of at least 4 other burglaries, items were allegedly recovered in the home of the defendant. It was hoped that the matters could be completed before the end of the week.

After the allegations were made the defendant claimed that he was in custody since last Monday at about 3 P.M. Magistrate Richards related that the issue needed to be discussed with his lawyer as the maximum time he was arrested for should have been 48 hours.

Bail was then denied on the basis that investigations were ongoing. Each offence she explained, carried a maximum of 2 years in the magistrate’s court and a total of 10 years in the High Court. Magistrate Richards further related that the court was not inclined to grant bail in instances of a crime spree.

The matter was adjourned to December 17, 2012.