The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net 

A MAN facing up to 10 years in jail if convicted of late-night home invasion walked free from Supreme Court yesterday after a jury returned a not guilty verdict on a burglary charge.

Lionel Thomas, of Hutchinson Street, stood trial before Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs for less than a week on charges of burglary, stealing and receiving alleged committed on April 9, 2011.

The incident was one of 338 reported burglaries for that year, according to the Bahamas 2012 Crime and Safety Report.

The complainant, who wished not to be identified, was at her home when a man gained entry, accosted her and stole her cellular phone, laptop and cash.

However, Thomas, who denied the charges, had argued that he had been mistaken for someone else.

The jury returned with unanimous 9-0 not guilty verdicts for all three offences and Senior Justice Isaacs informed Thomas that he was free to go.

Thomas told The Tribune: "I'm so happy right now to get this things off me. From 2011, this things got thrown out and they bring it back three years after. We in 2015. That ain't making no sense. I'm going to go with God's will right now. All the things I used to do before, I putting it all behind me right now. I ain't looking at nothing no more but I'm gone look at my wife now. That's what I'm going to do. Thank God for this."

His lawyer, Alex Dorsett said the outcome was the result of "justice being served".

"In all criminal trials, the onus is always on the Crown to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilty of the accused man," Mr Dorsett said, adding that while "it's not our job but I think the jury's decision of 9-0 was vindication that not only did the prosecution not satisfy the test of reasonable doubt, but the jury was convinced that Mr Thomas is innocent.

"The Crown was alleging that Mr Thomas had entered the house of the complainant during the night, attacked her, attempted to rape her and stole items from insider her home. But the evidence did not support the allegations.

"It was very sketchy identification evidence. No items were found on him and there was absolutely no evidence placing him at the premises so the outcome is consistent with the lack of evidence on the part of the Crown," Mr Dorsett emphasised.

Cordell Frazier and Nicholas Mitchell prosecuted the case.