UK Privy Council restores gun conviction
Robert Aaron Crawford
(CNS): A West Bay man will go back to serving a ten-year jail term for possession of an unlicensed gun this week after the Privy Council in London overturned a Cayman Islands Court of Appeal decision Wednesday and reinstated the conviction by the original trial judge. Robert Aaron Crawford (22) was found guilty of having the firearm following a judge alone trial before Justice Charles Quin in 2012 but the following year he walked free from jail when the appeal court quashed the verdict.
But with a 344 paragraph judgement outlining how the judge had reached his decision, the crown took the case to the UK-based higher court.
Crawford was arrested after a police chase in which he crashed the car he was driving. The RCIPS received a report that he was armed from people at a West Bay Road nightclub car park, and when the officers arrived Crawford sped off with the police on his tail. After the impact the West Bay man, who was just 18 at the time, got out of the car and ran, but he was chased by a police officer, who saw him throw a handgun into the bushes as he fled.
The officer eventually caught Crawford and the first thing the teen said was: “That guy had a gun,” indicting his passenger, who had also fled in another direction and evaded the police. The gun was recovered from the bushes and Crawford was eventually charged.
At trial the judge relied on the police officer’s evidence, and despite some questions over the crime scene pictures, which indicated that the gun may have been moved when they were taken, Justice Quin did not feel it was sufficient to override the evidence of the police officer.
The following year, however, when the Court of Appeal heard the case, they overturned the verdict. They said the judge had not given enough consideration to the photograph inconsistencies, not considered the possibility that the officer had made an assumption that what Crawford threw was a gun because of various influences and he had not explained his position over the lack of DNA and other criticisms.
But in their ruling the Privy Council judges aimed their criticisms at the Court of Appeal and not the trial judge, who, they said, “set out the relevant factors impeccably”.
The found that the judge “was right to direct himself that the case depended on the evidence of PC Bradley”, and indicated that the judge’s verdict was “exactly the kind of assessment which ought not to be disturbed by an appellate court without clear reason”.
The Privy Council said that in trials there may well be loose ends or unresolved questions but that they do not have to be resolved unless necessary to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not, and on this occasion the judge had based his decision on Crawford’s behaviour and the officer’s evidence, as well as the fact that the weapon found had not been there for any period of time.
“Neither in respect of the photographic evidence nor in respect of the DNA evidence were the criticisms of the Court of Appeal justified,” the Privy Council wrote in the judgement reinstating the conviction. “The trial judge approached the case in respect of both matters correctly. There was no basis for departing from his verdict, which was based on his assessment of PC Bradley’s evidence and the elements of support available for it.”
Crawford received the mandatory minimum 10 year sentence and will return to serving that jail term. Police will not need to find him, however, as he is currently on remand at HMP Northward in connection with another incident involving a gun, which took place when he was released following his successful appeal.
Cayman government need learn something from Australia government as they are very strict with visas. If anyone who born outside country and been in jail, they are automatically deport once release from jail. These scum bags are no use to the population who want have crime free life.
And you should learn better English.
Australia is not bound by the ECHR. Cayman is.
Born Caymanian or status recipient? Deportation order? Anyone checking?
Thats your very own home grown terrorist. No deportation order needed.
So proud of our DPP. Thank you for appealing this case to the highest court. Cayman is safer because of you.
Are you a clown? If you’re not, you should be one… The DPP gets 1 out of 100 cases right and you are “so proud” of them? Wow, doesn’t take all that much to impress you. Let me guess, you’re the type of person who gives your kid a ribbon for being able to tie his/her shoe laces all on his/her own in Year 10.
10:18, I hope they are checking because we know none of these crimes are being committed by real born Caymanians. I checked the Courts Lists just the other day and found that…er…well…er…oh never mind.
The first story i read on CNS this morning and it’s made me feel so much better about our criminal justice system – it worked!
Actually your criminal justice system didn’t work, it had to go to the Privy Council, that means your criminal justice system failed.
No, it did work. The Privy Council is part of our criminal justice system as a final court of appeal. Surely you can appreciate this reality?
and where is the Privy Council based……not in your country where you criminal justice system is located, so it had to go outside to be corrected…Surely you can appreciate this reality?
The Privy Council is part of Caymans legal system, not that of the UK. The fact that it is physically situated in the UK is irrelevant. Same with with European Court not being in any one EC country.
Friend, clearly you are unaware that Cayman is a British Overseas Territory (a “colony”). It is not a “country” in the sense that you think it is. An appeal to the privy council in the U.K. is part of its judicial system.
In an ideal world there would just be solitary cells and no visits, no TV, no radio, nothing but four walls. Lock them up and let the scum rot.
A coward to flee in a car and risk lives of good people. A coward to plead not guilty when he was guilty. A coward to appeal. It is a shame given his lack of plea and behaviour that he only received the minimum sentence.
Good, sense prevails.
Good! About time the Privy Council call out this Appeal Court.
That last what he gets. Another dumbass off the streets.
good
Prison is very soft in Cayman and criminals are not encouraged to rehabilitate. This slime bag had a gun and guns kill people. This man should be locked up for a very long time. Has he made a public statement of remorse? Do his actions demonstrate remorse? If not, you stay in the clink until you are broken from your evil ways.
How many people have been hurt by parolees hell bent on revenge? Leave the bastard in jail until he rots in his own piss.
Encouraging them to rehabilitate is a waste of money. Most of them are never going to change. Many of those that go straight would have done so anyway without help. The funds are better spent making prison more like hell.
“This slime bag had a gun, and guns kill people”.
They also save peoples lives. Don’t see your point.
But they take much more lives. Compare the rates of gun deaths and murders in the US and Europe. Don’t drink the NRA kool-aid, that kool-aid killls people.
Cars kill more people a year than guns do. Compare the dates in any country from car accidents and you have more than guns but no one blames the car. Its the person behind the wheel.
Cars killed more children in the US this year than guns but no one is blaming toyota or ford or imposing stricter vehicule laws, but.. as soon as there is a gun crime its jump on the outlaw firearms bandwagon or some rant about the NRA or the second amendment.
Cars have positive social utility. Guns do not. Ask the parents of children slaughtered by a gunman on a spree. There are plenty such parents to ask in the US.
200 kids have been shot dead in the US in the last month. You go Second Amender.
Police have guns. Governors security has guns. Are they slime bags? It’s what your intentions are with the gun. You can own a gun to protect yourself and loved ones without being a “slime ball”.
That’s how it works in this day in age. A gun is a tool used to protect your life, property and loved ones. If we go back in time it used to be a sword that one would have. In a world where guns are as prevelant as bubble gum as is crime, it would seem like common sense to have in your posssion a gun to guard yourself from possible serious life threatening situations. Guns will always be around and if you dont have one then your that much more vulnerable, and so is your family.
It is not the gun, it the person behind it, Do not compare apples to oranges.
Exactly, it is the person behind the gun. Stricter gun laws won’t work against criminals who attain them illegally. Strict gun laws is one thing and preventing law abiding citizens the right to arms is another.
Nonsense. If you have a gun in your house your family are several times more vulnerable to death by gunshot. Oh and widening gun ownership greatly increases the rate of mass shootings.
That is nonsense
No. It’s a pair of verifiable facts. You might not like them, and you can argue about the reasons for them, but they are indisputable facts.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is good to be part of the UK.
We are not a part of the UK, and you don’t have to be a UK colony to have a right of appeal to the Privy Council. Many former colonies have retained such a right.
Does ten and ten make twenty??
10 years is not enough for this sort of scumbag.
A great result. The system was previously far too heavily biased in favour of criminals. It is still is too biased in favour of criminals, but at least after today there is a little correction in favour of good people.
For all of those critizing the RCIPS at the time following the appellant courts decision to throw the case out; what do you have to say now? Good job RCIPS in continuing to tackle this problem of gun crime and don’t get disheartened by all the naysayers.
Keep the prick in there.
Agreed. (Cage him, make a key out of a bone and throw it to a dog.)