Print evidence leads to burglary conviction
Sean Roy Scott was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment after Chief Magistrate Nova Hall rejected the explanation he offered for his fingerprints being at the scene of a burglary.
The burglary occurred at the Lions Aquatic Centre, near the Truman Bodden Sports Complex, on the night of 30 March, 2011. Access was gained after a glass window was broken; items stolen from an office included two laptops valued at $800 each, two camcorders valued at $300 and $100 in cash.
Scott, 21, told the court he had not been to the aquatic centre since he swam there as a student. He suggested a time frame of 10 years. He also said the building was not configured then as it is now.
Police fingerprint expert William Mackay said he examined prints which another officer had taken from inside the broken window. He identified the prints as belonging to Scott and told the court that his identification was verified by another fingerprint expert as protocol requires.
Questioned further, Mr. Mackay said he was unable to say how long fingerprints would last. He noted they could be easily wiped away and are particularly susceptible to humidity.
In finding Scott guilty, the magistrate asked whether the prints could have been there 10 years.
“It strains credulity to accept that neither the glass nor the window ledge had been wiped over the course of 10 years,” she said. She pointed out that the centre was an occupied premises, not an abandoned building.
The magistrate also said she could take judicial notice of the fact that, during the course of 10 years, rain has fallen and hurricanes have affected the George Town area.
“The premises is certainly affected by moisture,” she said.
Scott had told the court he went to a neighbour’s barbecue on the evening of 30 March. He said he then went home and went to bed. He maintained the position that he had not gone to the aquatic centre.
At the sentencing hearing on 1 February, defence attorney John Furniss reminded the magistrate that the burglary of a non-residential premises attracts a lesser sentence than the tariff of three years for the same offence at a dwelling house.
Related Videos
