The Tribune

THE COURT of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of two men convicted of an armed robbery of a Burger King restaurant six years ago.

Kadeem Bain and Tony Newbold were convicted on February 28, 2014 of being concerned together and with others in the armed robbery of Burger King’s Cable Beach location on the evening of September26, 2011. Newbold was also convicted of two counts of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. Both appellants were sentenced to imprisonment on September 24, 2014.

In a written judgment, Court of Appeal President Dame Anita Allen concluded that “none of the grounds of appeal put forward by either appellant has been made out, and I would dismiss both appeals”. She was supported by her fellow Justices Jon Isaacs and Stella Crane-Scott.

In 2014, the Burger King Cable Beach location was robbed by assailants wearing masks and bearing guns, the judgment said.

Shortly thereafter mobile police encountered a vehicle and motioned for the driver to pull over. The driver of the vehicle did not pull over but persisted in driving erratically, crashing into another vehicle at the Tonique Williams Darling Highway roundabout, the ruling continued.

The officers fired at the fleeing assailants and Newbold was shot.

Four persons, including the two appellants, were charged with the robbery.

According to the summation, they all gave confession statements to the police and later recanted alleging that they had been forced to sign the confession statements through oppression, violence and omissions by the police.

A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the confessions and the trial judge gave his finding but did not give reasons for so finding.

Dame Allen ruled the judge’s decision that confession statements were admissible as evidence was supported by the evidence reviewed.

“I acknowledge that the burden is on the prosecution to refute any allegation made by the defendant that he experienced pain during the interview due to the police’s neglect to give him medication prescribed by the doctor for the reduction or relief of pain caused by his surgery,” it read.

“However, it is obvious from the learned judge’s decision on the voir dire, that he found Newbold was not in pain during the interview, and that the failure to give him his medication did not amount to an omission which would render the confessions unreliable.”

She continued: “Having ruminated on the evidence before the court, and given the simplicity of the issues in the case, the fact that Newbold, although advised by the court that he could have representation, chose not to, and given his facility in structuring his questions, I am of the view that Newbold’s case was properly and effectively made out before the jury.

“In the result, the jury believed the case the prosecution placed before them and were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of Newbold’s guilt. I have no doubt that had the case been presented by counsel the results would have been the same. I have no doubt that there was no miscarriage of justice in this case.

“I apprehend no prejudice suffered by the appellant, nor do I find that his lack of representation made his trial unfair or his conviction unsafe. I accordingly conclude that none of the grounds of appeal put forward by either appellant has been made out, and I would dismiss both appeals.”