The trial of Martha Levy commenced on 11th June 2012 and continued for two days. After this an application by Defence counsel, Clyde Allen, for an adjournment of the trial was granted in order for further telephone evidence. This was granted.
Defendant Levy was charged, along with three other persons, with theft in that on 15th January 2011 at Money Express, Elizabethan Square, George Town, Grand Cayman, she stole CI$62,667.00 and US$24,252.00. She was further charged with Conspiracy to Steal. She pleaded ‚ÄúNot Guilty‚ÄĚ whilst her co-defendants pleaded ‚ÄúGuilty‚ÄĚ.
The trial against Levy reconvened on 15th October 2012 and at the close of the Crown‚Äôs case, Allen made a no case to answer application to Grand Court Judge, Charles Quin.
The same day the Crown placed on record that it would not proceed against Levy on an additional third charge of Perverting the Course of Justice.
The co-accused, Sanjay Burrell, said Levy came into the office at Money Express on the day the robbery took place, which Levy has denied. There was no other evidence presented by the Crown that the Defendant ever came into the office on that day. Marixa Bush, a Crown witness who worked with Money Express gave evidence that she never saw Levy on that day in question.
There was no evidence presented that Levy had participated in the robbery at all nor that she knew the robber, Joseph Suberan, or knew anything about him.
When Burrell was arrested by the police and was discussing his involvement in the robbery he never mentioned Martha Levy. In his statement to the police on 15th January 2011 he again never mentioned Levy at all.
On 20th January 2011 on being further questioned he said Levy had no part in the robbery and had no idea about it.
When asked in the Court why he had not told the police about Levy‚Äôs involvement in the robbery he said he did not see the need to implicate her and as he was caught there was no need for her to get caught.
Burrell admitted to lying to the police but said he did it to try and exonerate himself and because he was thinking about having to care for his children.
Burrell gave evidence that when he was speaking with Suberan about their drug activities he (Burrell) would give Levy $10,000. This figure changed on at least two further occasions throughout his evidence to the Court.
In conversations Burrell had with Suberan concerning these discussions regarding money for Levy he talked about getting a gun and other activities but no evidence was given to the Court that she knew of these conversations.
It was only 11 days before Burrell was due to be sentenced that he implicated Levy.
The evidence of Jaime Morales, another co-defendant, was totally discounted and as the trial continued even the Crown discounted it, too.
In making his decision to grant the ‚Äúno Case‚ÄĚ, Justice Quin said, ‚ÄúI find that the evidence¬† adduced¬† by¬† the¬† Crown¬† in¬† this¬† case¬† has¬† been¬† so discredited ¬†- in¬† the¬† case of Morales¬† – and is so intrinsically¬† weak¬† and inconsistent in relation to¬† the¬† co-accused, Mr.¬† Burrell,¬† that¬† there¬† is¬† no possibility of my being convinced to the required ¬†standard by the evidence before me, that the Defendant is guilty.
‚ÄúAccordingly, and following the classic dicta of Lord Lane in Galbraith, I find that it is my duty, on this no case submission, to stop the case.‚ÄĚ
Judge Quin also said he was impressed by the manner in which PC Francis, the officer who investigated the case and prepared the file. He said the police constable‚Äôs notes were exemplary in their detail and it was through no fault of his that the evidence of the co-accused was so discredited.
He also said he was impressed with witness, Telecommunications Expert Joanne Woods, who exposed Morales as an unreliable witness.