Smith denies any part in salon heist

(CNS): Christine Rae Smith (37), the former PA and office manager to George Town MLAs Winston Connolly and Roy McTaggart, told the court that she was only a victim in the robbery at the Elegant Nail Salon in July last year and that she had no idea her boyfriend was one of the robbers. Answering questions from the witness box, Smith denied that the text messages she had sent to Paul Myles, who has already admitted his part in the crime, had anything to do with the armed hold-up.

Smith explained away what the crown said were incriminating messages as typos and misinterpretation. She said that pictures on her phone of the imitation guns that the crown says the robbers used in the heist were part of some research that she was doing for Connolly, who was attempting to put together a private member’s motion regarding gangs and crime.

Facing three counts of robbery and possession of an imitation firearm, Smith denied orchestrating the hold-up and claimed she had no idea that Myles, who she admitted had her truck at the time, was planning a robbery. She said she was expecting him to come and collect her after she had her hair braided but she was growing increasingly frustrated as she had waited a long time for the hairdresser to attend to her. She said the texts to Myles related to plans to collect her and issues relating to her truck and were not about the robbery.

Despite the coincidence of her boyfriend and one of the men she worked with admitting that they were the robbers, she denied knowing anything at all. She told the court that if she had known, she would have reported Myles and he knew that, which was probably why he did not tell her he planned on robbing the salon where she was getting her hair done.

Following her evidence the crown began its closing argument in the case before Justice Charles Quin, who is hearing the case alone.

In his summary of Rae Smith’s evidence, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Patrick Moran said that the messages were obviously sent to Myles to tell him what was going on, where valuables were and what to do when he and the other robber arrived, and her attempts to explain them were “nonsensical”. He said they amounted to “outright deceit” and her explanations were “outlandish” and did not “make a jot of sense”.

The case continues.