St James Court Weighs Larceny Claim After Neighbour Returns Missing Wallet

MONTEGO BAY, St James — A St James Parish Court matter now turns on whether an accused man was trying to help his neighbour recover a lost wallet or whether he stole from it and later attempted to explain away his involvement.

The man, who is charged with simple larceny in relation to his neighbour, appeared before Judge Natiesha Fairclough-Hylton on Wednesday. Attorney-at-law Michael Hemmings is representing him.

According to information placed before the court, the complainant had parked his vehicle in Content, St James, earlier this year. By the next morning, he realised that his wallet was gone. The wallet contained his bank card along with other personal belongings.

The complainant later went to the bank to have the card cancelled. While he was there, he allegedly saw his neighbour come into the bank with the wallet. Checks were carried out by a bank representative, and the wallet was eventually handed back to the complainant.

After getting it back, however, the complainant discovered that money was missing. He reported that US$100 and $180,000 were no longer in the wallet. A report was made to the police, and the accused was later arrested and charged.

Hemmings rejected the prosecution’s version of events when the matter came up on Wednesday. “It appears as though it does not pay to be a Good Samaritan these days, because my instructions differ entirely from the allegations that were read,” he told the court.

The attorney also argued that, even if the allegations were taken at face value, the Crown would have difficulty proving the charge. “The Crown could not satisfy the requisite elements of the offence to say that this man took monies from that man’s wallet as he claims,” Hemmings said.

“I don’t know where the Crown is going with this because the elements of the offence cannot be proven in this case,” he added, while urging prosecutors to review the file properly and avoid “wasting judicial time”.

The clerk of court responded that the prosecution’s case includes circumstantial evidence. The clerk also told the court that the complainant had indicated an interest in mediation.

Judge Fairclough-Hylton said the matter would be placed on a case management track so the defence could examine the Crown’s material and the clerk could speak with her witness. The court would then decide the next step in the proceedings.

When the complainant was allowed to speak, he said he had gone to the bank to cancel his card when he saw his neighbour giving the wallet to a security officer. The officer later returned it to him.

“My wallet had my identification inside, so he would have known the wallet belonged to me because I am his upstairs neighbour,” the complainant told the court.

The judge then asked why the wallet was brought to the bank instead of being taken straight back to the complainant. Hemmings said his client had first gone to the complainant’s home to return it but did not meet him there. The attorney said the accused then carried the wallet to the bank and was later accused of stealing it.

Seeking more detail, the judge asked the complainant why he believed the accused had removed the money. The complainant said no one else could have taken it, explaining that the location is on a dead-end road and people do not usually pass through the area.

However, when the judge questioned him further, he acknowledged that other people live in the yard. He did not directly answer when asked whether any of those persons could have taken the money.

Judge Fairclough-Hylton directed the clerk to review the case file and set the matter for case management on June 10. The accused man’s bail was extended.