Select a region
An alleged burglar, who says he was only at the scene of the reported crime to foil a drugs plot, was accused of creating a "fairytale" in which he is the "knight in shining armour" ahead of the jury retiring to consider their verdict.
The trial of Paul David William Le Geyt (27) came to a close in the Royal Court this afternoon after concluding speeches from both lawyers. All that remains is for the jury to consider their verdict.
Mr Le Geyt denies the charge of illegal entry and larceny brought against him, relating to an allegation that he entered a property in Beaumont without permission and stole two designer watches and a camera lens from the family who live there.
The evidence called in the short trial was heard over two days by a jury of six men and six women and now they have retired to consider their verdict on if Mr Le Geyt is guilty of the offence said to have taken place on 18 October last year.
Closing the prosecution’s case, Crown Advocate Richard Pedley painted the defendant as a fantasist, saying that Mr Le Geyt had created “a fairy tale” and cast “himself in the role as the knight in shining armour” in order “to avoid the consequences” of his actions.
Pictured: The trial has heard evidence from the defendant as well as the householders who say he robbed them.
This refers to an account which the defendant put forward in his Police interview and reiterated when he gave live evidence in Court that he was only at the property in an attempt to “blackmail” an individual he understood to be framing a young woman for drugs imports.
The Crown Advocate mused over how a “blameless” individual would behave in these circumstances, asking the jury: “Do you run away? Do you threaten to put a young girl to the floor? Do you text someone saying you’ve ‘been rumbled’?... Do you borrow a child’s scooter to get away?... Do you hide in a barn and refuse to come out? Do you pull a knife?”
“No,” the prosecution counsel said plainly, “you run because you’re guilty of an offence and you want to get away.”
In contrast to the testimony of the eyewitnesses in the case – including the two sisters whose family home was allegedly burgled – which the Crown Advocate described as “consistent”, Mr Le Geyt’s was said to be comparably “riven with lies.”
Crown Advocate Pedley repeated throughout his speech the refrain: “The simplest explanation is often the correct one.”
The jury then heard from Mr Le Geyt’s lawyer, Defence Advocate Ian Jones, who reminded the jurors that returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict is “not a certificate of innocence”, but rather that they haven’t been persuaded so that they are “sure” his client committed the alleged offence.
Pictured: Mr Le Geyt is said to have stolen a kid's scooter to make a faster getaway from Police.
Drawing the jury’s attention to what he termed as “areas of doubt” within the prosecution’s case, Advocate Jones queried the whereabouts of the large amount of cash the sisters say was also taken from the property but wasn’t found on his client.
This, Advocate Jones said, is inconsistent with the prosecution’s portrayal of his client as a man who went to the property with a “sole design” to rob it.
The defence lawyer also made much of Crime Scene Investigator Graham Dryland’s testimony that there is no forensic evidence linking Mr Le Geyt to the property.
Regarding his client’s testimony in Court, defence counsel reminded the jury that Mr Le Geyt was “under no compulsion” to give evidence, but that he nonetheless “laid himself open to be cross-examined by an experienced Crown prosecutor.”
Giving the jury instructions as the the law, the Deputy Bailiff Tim Le Cocq advised the jury that, although Mr Le Geyt admitted lying in his Police interview about some things, “people tell lies for a variety of reasons” and it doesn’t necessarily signal that he’s guilty.
The Deputy Bailiff also summed up all the evidence that has been heard in the case before inviting the jury to retire to consider their verdict.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.