Man Who Robbed Bar Was Located By Police Through The “Find My iPhone” App. He Will Serve Time For Robbery, Theft & Possession Of An Imitation Firearm

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By Alric Lindsay

Tyrell Carlton Smith appeared by video link before the Honourable Justice Carter today, October 18, 2024, where his lawyer, Stacy Ann Kelly, addressed sentencing matters for robbery, theft and possession of an imitation firearm concerning a robbery of Island Bar on Dr Roy’s Drive in George Town. It was noted that Smith previously pleaded guilty to all charges in May 2024, and the purpose of today was to discuss possible sentencing ranges for the offences.

Background

Providing a background to Smith’s matter, the Crown said that, on May 5, 2024, Smith went to Island Bar in George Town just before midnight when it was closing.

Wearing a dark cap with a yellow-orange bandana tied around his face, Smith entered the bar and brandished what appeared to be a silver firearm with a black handle (this later turned out to be a flare gun).

Smith went behind the bar and took the bartender’s bag. He also took a customer’s wallet containing $2,500.

Reportedly, all of this was captured on CCTV.

Police search and investigation

According to the Crown, police searched the property of Arch & Godfrey on Mary Street, where they found the stolen handbag containing the bartender’s passport and the clothing Smith used to commit the robbery.

Police connected Smith to the robbery because his DNA was present on the bandana police found.

The arrest

In a bizarre turn of events, while police were investigating a different burglary in which an iPhone was stolen, they traced the iPhone to Smith’s home using the “Find My iPhone” app. At that time, police found an orange flare gun that resembled what was seen in his hand on the CCTV footage of the Island Bar robbery.

Reportedly, Smith initially denied being involved in the Island Bar robbery but “was unable to give an account of his whereabouts at the relevant time.”

When asked how his DNA came to be on the bandana, he did not comment.

What the law says about sentences

Robbery

The Crown explained in Court that the robbery offence was covered by section 242 of the Penal Code. This states:

242. (1) A person commits robbery if that person steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, that person uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

(2) A person who commits robbery is liable to imprisonment for life.

Theft

Discussing theft, the Crown explained that this fell under section 241 of the Penal Code. This states:

241. A person who commits a theft commits an offence and (a) where the value of the thing stolen does not exceed five thousand dollars, is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for seven years; and (b) where the value of the thing stolen exceeds five thousand dollars, is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for ten years

In this case, Smith stole $2,500.

Imitation firearm

Explaining the firearm charge, the Crown noted that this was covered by section 18 of the Firearms Act. This states:

Whoever has with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit an offence, to resist arrest or to prevent the arrest of another person, in either case while he has the firearm or imitation firearm with him, is guilty of an offence and, subject to section 39, is liable on conviction to a fine of one hundred thousand dollars and to imprisonment for twenty years.

Sentencing ranges considered

Looking at the specific circumstances of the robbery, the Crown suggested a starting point of five years imprisonment with a range of four to eight years.

For possession of an imitation firearm, the Crown noted that there are no sentencing guidelines related to the offence where a person intended to commit an offence. UK guidelines could, therefore, be used. The starting point in that case is one to four years.

In the case of theft, the Crown noted that there are no sentencing guidelines in the Cayman Islands. In this case, the suggestion was a low-level community order to 36 weeks of custody.

Smith’s lawyer, Stacy Ann Kelly, disagreed with some of the sentencing ranges proposed by the Crown and suggested lower starting ranges for the offences.

Regarding the sentence to be finally decided by the Court, Kelly asked the Court to consider: