Foil foils monitor, court hears

A simple piece of silver foil paper can render a monitor device useless. 

The silver foil paper, placed over an electronic monitoring device, blocks the Global Positioning System signal, Crown Counsel Tricia Hutchinson said in Summary Court on Tuesday. The result is that the location of the monitoring device cannot be determined and the purpose of the monitor is defeated. 

That was the background to the charge of Joel Christopher Duncan pleaded guilty to – tampering with a device used to facilitate electronic monitoring in the early hours of Sunday, 6 May. 

Defence attorney Clyde Allen emphasised that Duncan, 24, was on police bail at the time. No charges had been laid, he told Chief Magistrate Nova Hall, but there was an investigation into an alleged robbery or theft and Duncan had been arrested some six weeks ago. 

Ms Hutchinson advised that conditions of Duncan’s bail included the wearing of the monitoring device and an 8pm curfew. 

She said police officers were on patrol in an area of George Town around 12.43am. They heard music and saw two men sitting on a wall, one of whom turned out to be Duncan. He was facing the roadway, with his feet hanging to the front of the wall. 

One of the officers knew he was on bail with curfew conditions. As the officers approached, Duncan began to remove a silver paper from the device. He then threw the paper away. 

The officers spoke with him and retrieved the foil paper. He was remanded in custody until his court appearance. He gave a statement in which he said he was out because a girl had called him. 

Ms Hutchinson said the Electronic Monitoring Centre was unable to tell the location of the monitoring device. 

Mr. Allen said the ankle bracelet signal could be picked up “but not the exact location”. Duncan was picked up just two houses away from where he lived, he told the court. “He should not have been out of the house, but he wanted to go to the dance,” he said, referring to the nearby street party. 

Duncan categorically denied any involvement in the incident police were investigating and he had no local convictions, the attorney said. 

The magistrate referred to the penalty section of the law. A person who damages, destroys or tampers with any device used for electronic monitoring is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of $500 and to imprisonment for one year. 

Because there is such a disparity between a $500 fine and the possible prison sentence, she put the Crown on notice that for any future case she would want to know the value of an electronic ankle bracelet.  

Some people have been brought to court who actually dismantled or destroyed theirs, she pointed out.  

In passing sentence, the magistrate noted that the monitor had been put on Duncan because of the ongoing investigation, which to date had not borne fruit, He appeared before her only on the tampering charge only. Considering the maximum sentence, she fined him $350 or 30 days in lieu of payment.