After An 8 Year Case Delay, Three Men & One Woman Were Sentenced Today For The 2016 Royal Bank of Canada Burglary
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
Today, November 8, 2024, the Hon. Actg. Justice Chapple sentenced David Samuel Bodden Jr to 4 years in prison, and each of Statan Omar Clarke and Elton David Webster to 3 ½ years in prison for their roles in the 2016 burglary of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC). Eliza Eunice Webster got 6 months, however, she will not serve any immediate jail time because Justice Chapple suspended her sentence for 2 years.
Background
As explained in the Grand Court, Bodden Jr was an employee of RBC and was the “inside man” for the burglary.
Although Bodden Jr was a valued and trusted employee since leaving school in 2007 and a man of good character, Justice Chapple said he committed a “gross breach of trust” against RBC in facilitating the planning and execution of the burglary.
Justice Chapple added that the participation of Mr Clarke and Mr Webster, knowing that Bodden Jr was is in a position of trust, meant that Mr Clarke and Mr Webster “embraced and endorsed that abuse of a position of trust.”
Regarding the execution of the burglary, Justice Chapple explained that RBC was “plainly deliberately targeted” and involved significant planning and organization. This included having a getaway car in the vicinity of the bank, waiting until the coast was clear when the cash dispensing units were opened and access was available to the exterior and interior security. Ultimately, a total of KYD$464,000 and about US$126,000 were stolen from RBC. These amounts were never recovered.
Sentencing guidelines
When considering sentencing, Justice Chapple said that, in the case of Statan Omar Clarke and Elton David Webster, they are “men of good character.”
Justice Chapple added that he could not “fathom why they should choose to become involved in serious crime as the jury determined, particularly given their station and achievements in life and their hitherto law-abiding lives.”
However, Justice Chapple noted that the position was different for Mrs. Webster as she had previous convictions that he could not ignore.
Examining the sentencing guidelines, Justice Chapple explained that the maximum sentence for the burglary was 14 years imprisonment.
In the specific circumstances, Justice Chapple said that the guidelines indicated a starting point of 6 years custody with a category range of 4 to 14 years.
Due to aggravating features of the burglary, Justice Chapple raised the sentences of Bodden Jr from 6 years to 8 years and of Mr Clarke and Mr Webster from 6 years to 7 years.
After considering mitigating features, the Bodden Jr’s sentence was reduced to 4 years. Mr Clarke and Mr Webster had their sentenced reduced to 3 ½ years each.
Mrs Webster ultimately received 6 months imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, for the sake of her children.
Next steps
Justice Chapple noted that the prison sentences for Bodden Jr, Mr Clarke and Mr Webster would commence immediately. Mrs Clarke’s 2 year suspended sentence will only be activated (i.e., she may be subject to jail time) if she commits a crime within the next 2 years.
Additionally, Justice Chapple said that the process for a confiscation hearing would now commence and the parties would serve notices on each other over the next couple of months.
Notes to readers:
Justice Chapple stressed in the sentencing judgment that jail time was reduced to the previous good character of the defendants.
He added that there was a long, 8 year period between the commission of these offences and the conclusion of today’s proceedings.
According to Justice Chapple, this delay impacted the defendants, who lost their jobs as a result of their initial arrests.
The delay also had a “traumatic effect upon the Websters’ children.
Notwithstanding the delay impacts, the defendants did “their best in difficult circumstances to rebuild their lives.”
Regarding the reasons for the delay, Justice Chapple noted that the defense lawyers maintained that “the reason for almost all the delay is due to incompetence and or fault on the part of the prosecution.” Other factors noted were the difficulty of listing the case in the Grand Court, lack of manpower and other resources.
