Select a region
An alleged burglar, who attempted to escape from Police on a child's scooter, mimicked a lawyer before storming out of the witness box in the middle of giving evidence as his trial in the Royal Court continues.
Paul David William Le Geyt (27), who denies robbing a St. Peter property, chose to take the stand to tell the jury that much of what he said in his Police statement had been “misconstrued” before becoming increasingly agitated during cross-examination.
Mr Le Geyt had also originally been charged with violently resisting arrest, but Deputy Bailiff Tim Le Cocq, presiding, told jurors yesterday afternoon that this charge had been dropped following representations from his lawyer.
Answering questions from his own lawyer, Defence Advocate Ian Jones, Mr Le Geyt stuck to the account in his Police interview that he had was only at the St. Peter home to “settle a dispute between an ongoing situation where drugs were being delivered to a person’s address”, and he was planning “a form of blackmail to make this stop.”
Pictured: On the stand, Paul David William Le Geyt stuck to the account he had told Police during interview.
The Court already heard that Mr Le Geyt told Police of a “very dangerous” individual who, using a reported connection in Customs, was sending parcels of drugs to a young woman’s address in an attempt to frame her for the imports. It was confirmed in Court that these allegations were investigated and no evidence of corruption was found.
He told the Court that the man he had gone to Beaumont with – whom he refuses to name – had led him to believe that this individual would be at the property.
When asked by the Defence Advocate about the day of the alleged burglary unfolded, Mr Le Geyt said that the door to the property was “slightly ajar”, but that he “didn’t want to go straight into the property” so went around the back to see if anyone was in.
According to Mr Le Geyt, the furthest he ever went into the property was the porch area. As he stood there, he said the other man he was with came running down the stairs, “shoved the bag into [his] chest” and they both “turned to run out the property.”
Pictured: The house that Mr Le Geyt is accused of stealing from is in the area of Beaumont. (Google Maps)
This rucksack was found later to contain two designer watches belonging to one of the residents of the house. On day one of the trial, the Court heard that one of the former residents of the house chased Mr Le Geyt across the beach and it was during this pursuit that a camera lens fell out of the rucksack onto the sand and was picked up by a passer-by who witnessed the chase.
He described his actions on 18 October as resulting from having been "caught up" in what he described as "confusion”, adding that he “didn’t know that items had been stolen” until after he was arrested.
During cross-examination, Crown Advocate Richard Pedley – appearing for the prosecution – accused Mr Le Geyt of “trying to have [his] cake and eat it” by putting forward this account, but refusing to identify any of the other parties involved that might be able to corroborate his “story”.
“I couldn’t live with putting someone else in jail, sir,” the 27-year-old responded.
Through his questions, the prosecution lawyer attempted to point out inconsistencies between what Mr Le Geyt told Police during his interview and his evidence in Court.
Throughout his testimony, Mr Le Geyt maintained that he “didn’t steal anything”. However, as the cross-examination progressed, he became increasingly frustrated at the Crown Advocate’s line of questioning.
He told Crown Advocate Pedley: “You’re getting to me… You want me to get angry, you want me to get upset… You get a kick out of it… It’s people’s lives you’re playing with here, it’s not f***ing funny.”
The defendant then stormed out of the witness box and had to take a break to regain his composure.
Upon his return, he apologised to prosecution counsel and the rest of the Court - one that he reiterated when his evidence came to a close and he returned to the dock.
Although Mr Le Geyt insists that he didn’t rob the house, he did admit in Court that when he told Police he had found the drugs which were later found in his pocket outside the property, he was lying.
“I tried to do a dirty thing and blame it on the house… The MDMA and the cannabis were both mine,” he told the jury.
The trial will continue with closing speeches from both sides. The Deputy Bailiff will then sum up the evidence heard throughout the trial before advising jurors on matters of law.
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.