Toy gun bandit remanded

Mar 28, 2009 News

Jamal Edi, right, is escorted from the lock-ups

Magistrate Hazel Octive-Hamilton yesterday remanded a ‘no tricks no living’ man who allegedly robbed a Chinese restaurant with a “toy gun”.
It was alleged that Jamal Edi, 22, of 417 Goed Fortuin Squatting Area, robbed Le Jei Mei of a quantity of items valuing $148,000 on March 25, last.
He was not required to plead and was represented by attorney-at-law, Lyndon Amsterdam.
The lawyer stated that despite the seriousness of the offence the law still presumes his client is innocent, and that it was a bailable offence.
Amsterdam stated that if his client were granted his pretrial liberty he would definitely return to court. The lawyer further explained that he was reliably informed by a police officer that the “weapon” that his client had in his possession was a “plastic toy gun” yet the investigating rank stated that it was “dangerous” weapon.
He said that the charges brought against his client intend for his client not to be granted bail adding that the officers are trying to anticipate the Magistrate’s thoughts.
“As soon as the Magistrate sees dangerous weapon, “a gun”, it is automatic that bail would be denied but the court needs to know that it a plastic toy,” Amsterdam said.
Police Prosecutor Robert Clement objected to bail and told the court that the defendant, after he was arrested, gave the police two different addresses.
He said that if bail is granted there is no guarantee that the defendant would return to court. The prosecutor also stated that the issue of the weapon is what was purported by the virtual complainant. He said that the defendant was found with a bag that contained the money and other items, which were stolen from Le Jei Mei. The prosecutor then asked for a date for trial.
The lawyer interjected and told the court that he was informed of the different addresses. According to the lawyer the defendant’s mother did tell him that the defendant works in Linden and would stay at an address in Kara Kara, but would return to his mother’s home on weekends.
Amsterdam said that he didn’t want to give the two addresses to confuse the courts. The lawyer further stated that the prosecutor never even mentioned the fact that the gun was not real, adding that he just sidestepped the issue.
Bail was refused and the accused is expected to make his next court appearance on April 17.