Lighter sentence for accessory to Abu Ghazi robbery

PHILIPSBURG – The Court in First Instance sentenced Jermaine Carty to 30 months of imprisonment for his role in an armed robbery at the Abu Ghazi restaurant in Madame Estate on June 14. Of the sentence, 10 months are suspended; The verdict is significantly lower than the prosecution’s demand for a 5-year prison term.

The reason for the lower verdict is that the court did not find the 29-year old defendant guilty of complicity and considered him only as an accessory to the crime that was committed by Andy P. and a man called Jones.

Carty was the driver of the getaway car. “I was driving them and I did not know what was going to happen.’ he told the court on Wednesday. The defendant said that he only realized his two passengers were going to rob the restaurant after they left his car and covered their faces and when he saw that they had guns.

Carty waited nevertheless for the robbers to return and drove away with them. At that moment the restaurant’s owner arrived and he pursued the robbers. They eventually left the car behind and fled on foot. Police found the robbers via the car that belonged to Carty but was registered in his mother’s name.

After the robbery, Carty reported to the police, where he said that he had been stopped by two men who told him to drive to the Abu Ghazi restaurant.

The public prosecutor did not believe that story. “He picked up the others, knowing that they wanted to commit a robbery. After the robbery, he facilitated the escape.” The prosecutor said that Carty is an accomplice who made a contribution, before, during and after the robbery.

“He played a larger role than he wants us to believe.” the prosecutor said, adding that the other two suspects had received a reduced sentence in August when it appeared that they were under Carty’s influence. “I take it that Carty made the plan for the robbery.” he said, demanding a 5-year prison sentence.

Attorney Sjamira Roseburg noted that her client had cooperated with the investigation and that he had only been the driver. “The assumption that my client made the plan for the robbery is solely based on ta statement by Andy P. that is insufficient,” she said. “My client did not get part of the loot, he did not make the plan and he did not make an essential contribution.”

Roseburg said that her client was an accessory to the crime and not an accomplice. She asked the court to acquit Carty of firearm possession.

The court ruled that the defendant knew what was going to happen but that otherwise there is no reason to doubt his statements. “Jones confirmed that the robbery was Andy’s plan. The defendant took them there and helped them flee, so he made a contribution to the crime. It is however insufficient for complicity.”

While Carty has a criminal record – with convictions dating back to 2009 and 2013 – the court said that this is not an aggravating circumstance. After Carty confirmed to the court that the car that was used during the robbery belonged to him, the court seized the vehicle.