🔒 Lawyers argue lack of evidence in bank burglary case

After a two-month trial, the defence lawyers for four defendants accused of a burglary at a George Town bank have urged the jury not to convict based on suspicion, stating that it does not constitute evidence. The defendants are accused of being involved in a half-million-dollar heist at the Royal Bank of Canada in 2016. The lawyers argued that the crown had not presented concrete evidence of their clients' involvement, but had built a case on unproven suspicions. The suspicions began when one of the defendants was found at the airport with cash that was later found to have been part of a delivery to the bank shortly before the burglary. However, the crown could not definitively say which notes had been stolen.

🔎

The defence lawyers argued that the crown had constructed a case based on what investigators found suspicious, rather than keeping an open mind about other possible explanations for the heist. They pointed out that there was no forensic evidence, no CCTV footage, and no certainty about which notes were stolen or whether the car identified by the police was involved in the crime. The lawyers urged the jury to return not guilty verdicts, stating that the circumstantial evidence presented by the crown was ambiguous suspicion and did not meet the standard of evidence required to convict anyone of a crime. Justice Roger Chapple, who is presiding over the case, began directing the jury on the law and is expected to continue recapping the lengthy case.

⚖️