Man charged with abduction to be tried in his absence

Richard Robert Hurlstone, a defendant in a US$500,000 abduction scheme, is scheduled to be tried in Grand Court in September although he apparently left the Cayman Islands in December, 2010. 

Justice Charles Quin ordered that a four-to-five day trial begin on September 15. He set the date after Senior Crown Counsel Tanya Lobban told the court on Thursday that the Crown will be proceeding against Hurlstone in his absence. 

No one was present to represent the defendant. He did have an attorney when the matter first came to court and Ms. Lobban suggested that the attorney be advised of the order. 

Hurlstone, 36, was one of four men charged after an incident in March, 2010, when a young man was held for ransom after being induced to attend an address in North Side. His abductors demanded a payment of $500,000 from his mother for his release.  

One of the four men pleaded guilty. Two others pleaded not guilty, elected trial by judge alone and were found guilty. 

Before their trial began, the Crown applied for Hurlstone to be tried with them, although there was evidence he had left the jurisdiction and was in Honduras. 

Justice Karl Harrison pointed out that Cayman’s Criminal Procedure Code provides that a person shall be tried by a judge and jury unless he specifically elects judge alone. Since Hurlstone had not made this election and the three men were to be tried together, that meant that the other two men would have to have a jury trial. 

Defense attorney Ben Tonner objected, saying his client had elected judge alone and it did not seem right that Hurlstone, who had absented himself, should be able to dictate the mode of trial for others. 

Justice Harrison ruled that the two men present could be tried separately from Hurlstone. He pointed out that since the Crown had already applied for Hurlstone to be tried in his absence, the matter could be dealt with at some future date. 

It was noted at the time that Hurlstone was a Honduran national with Caymanian status. Two sureties ended up having to pay $20,000 each because of his failure to attend court. 

When the incident occurred that led to the men being charged, the case was widely – and wrongly – publicized as a kidnapping. 

The difference was subsequently explained in court. Kidnapping means taking any person beyond the limits of the Cayman Islands, or taking a young person out of the keeping of a lawful guardian without the guardian’s consent. In this case, the victim was 23. 

Abduction is compelling a person to go from any place by force or inducing him to go by some deceitful means.