Magistrate gives convicted robber second chance

Mar 17, 2015 News

---

“I’m giving you a second chance. Please utilize it,” said Magistrate Judy Latchman to Quason Roberts.
Roberts, a mechanic, avoided a lengthy jail sentence after the Magistrate committed him to the Skills and Knowledge for Youth Employment (SKYE) project.
Roberts, 22, was found guilty by the said Magistrate on February 26, of robbing Theresa Fredericks of a Samsung Galaxy S5 mini phone along with her purse that contained $10,000 in cash on October 18, 2014 at East La Penitence.
His matter, which was put down for two weeks pending a probation report concluded yesterday at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
The SKYE project works with at-risk youths, who are school dropouts and youths who have fallen foul of the juvenile justice system. The project provides the necessary education, skills, and behaviours for integration into the workforce.
The Magistrate told Roberts that he seems to have tremendous potential and that he deserves a second chance. She took into consideration that it was the young man’s first offence and that he is a major provider for his family.
She encouraged him to stay away from trouble and to be the best mechanic he can possibly be.
Nonetheless, Roberts was warned that if he fails to attend the SKYE project he will be imprisoned for 48 months.
Before making his way out of the court compound, he told reporters that he always prayed and he wanted to thank God for the outcome of the matter. He stressed, that he is advising other prisoners to pray because jail is not a nice place.
Roberts was also charged with two other offences of robbery under arms; however they were dismissed. One of the dismissed charges stated that on October 18, last at East La Penitence, he robbed Jermaine Knights of one Premio motor car valued $2.8 M. The other offence stated that on the same day he robbed Knights of one Samsung touch cellular phone and $43,000 in cash.
During the hearing on February 26, the magistrate informed the court that she will rely on the prosecution’s case. She also told Roberts that she will put no weight on the case led by the defence.
Roberts gave an unsworn statement to the court and called two witnesses; who were his mother and girlfriend.
Latchman informed the court that she strongly believes Fredericks (the victim) when she told the court that she positively identified Roberts during the course of the robbery. Since she looked at him for four minutes; and she had known him for one year because he worked at Brian’s Mechanic Shop.
Fredericks who shares a relationship with Knights, testified that on the night of the robbery the car was parked on a dam next to a traffic light at East La penitence. She stated that there was light shinning from the vulcanizing shop.
She further testified that Roberts approached her and asked, “What’s happening shorty?” and she replied, “I’m ok”. She then stated that Roberts demanded that she proceed down the dam but she refused.
The woman informed the court that she was dealt several cuffs to her face by the man. She said that Roberts then entered the car and reversed. She said she thought that he was going to hit her with the car, so she ran away. A few moments later she saw knights coming down the dam and they visited the police station.
Fredericks’s medical report showed that she received lacerations to the face.
During the trial, both the mother, Angus Roberts, and the girlfriend, Candacy Thompson, testified to the court that at the time of the robbery the defendant was at home.
His girlfriend testified that she was with her boyfriend when the robbery occurred. She stated that she was watching African Moods with his family.
The young woman claimed that on the night of the robbery she left the boyfriend’s house around 23:30hrs to go home.
She further mentioned that before she left, she informed her lover who was sleeping that she was leaving.
The prosecution refuted the girlfriend’s claims; they reflected on the mother’s testimony that was given to the court earlier in the trial. The prosecution pointed out that at no time during the mother’s testimony did she mention the girlfriend’s presence at the home.
The girlfriend further went on to say that when she got home she called her mother-in-law and informed her that she was home. She noted that her boyfriend was at home when she called; although she did not speak at the time of the call.
However, the prosecution questioned her statement. They doubted her, stressing that there is no way she could have known Roberts was at home if she did not make contact with him during the telephone conversation with his mother.
Hence, the magistrate disbelieved that Roberts was at home when summing up the evidence at the end of the trial.
Roberts first appeared before Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry on October 28, 2014 and pleaded not guilty to the offense.

---

---