A Pembroke man who spent just over a year on remand before he was found guilty on a charge of burglary had his conviction quashed on appeal in the Supreme Court.Robert Hewey was charged in Magistrates’ Court on February 13, 2012 with burglary at the Moon Nightclub on Front Street on January 30, and was placed on remand.He was convicted on June 13, 2012, by Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo who sentenced him to two years in prison; time on remand was also taken into consideration.Lawyer Dantae Williams argued that his client’s trial was unfair and he questioned the Magistrate’s decision to reject the application that there was no case to answer.He submitted that the Magistrate “erred in law” when he made that ruling.He also argued that the conviction was based solely on a single photograph taken off of CCTV camera footage that was never submitted as evidence. Geoffrey Faiella appeared for the Crown.Mr Williams said the photo did not show the individual in any compromised position and there was no date or time logged on it, or any evidence to suggest it was even taken from the actual footage recorded inside the club on the night in question.The Magistrate “erroneously reversed the Crown’s burden of proof and placed the burden on the defendant to disprove the Crown’s case”, in his view.The evidence he said, “did not properly support a finding of guilt”.He called for the conviction to be quashed and the Appellate Judge, Puisne Judge Carlisle Greaves agreed and stated that he would provide reasons for this decision at a later date. The ruling was handed down on March 27.Four witnesses testified for the Crown during the trial including club employee Joshua Peniston who discovered the break-in.He testified that he returned to work to find a window open and various items scattered on the floor, and that everything was “packed away and locked when he left the night before”.Employer Ronald Trott said he put the cash tills in the safe before he left, he estimated that up to $3,000 was missing along with bottles of liquor after the burglary.He also said the safe was in the correct locked position when he left on January 29, 2012.Another owner, Danny O’Connor, said there were 16 CCTV cameras at the club with four behind the bar.He estimated that $300 worth of liquor was stolen and he was the one who reviewed the CCTV footage after the incident.He forwarded a “blackberry photograph image” he had taken from the footage to Detective Constable David Abraham.He also confirmed that apart from the owners, only one staff member knew the combination to the safe.DC Abraham testified that he could “positively identify the person in the photograph as the Appellant (Hewey)”.But he admitted that he did not see the actual footage and that “he did not know the corresponding dates of photograph and the CCTV recording”.Mr Williams argued that as a result of “the Crown’s failures to seize or produce any footage his client’s original trial was unfair”.He maintained that “the Crown’s case was wholly dependent on an unclear blackberry photograph image purported to be taken from CCTV footage”.Without an eyewitness he also said there was no forensic evidence linking his client to the burglary.With only three people who knew the combination to unlock the safe, Mr Williams noted the footage “was likely to have recorded exactly what transpired in relation to the money stored in it”.But it was never submitted as evidence by the Crown.In the absence of any footage or forensic evidence he said: “We are no closer to identifying any assailant let alone eliminating the possibility that there were two assailants who acted completely separately; one who may have stolen liquor and another who may have stolen the cash.”“In conducting an investigation, the investigator should pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect,” said Mr Williams.“There had been such serious fault on the part of the police that it was not fair that the Appellant should be tried.“He suffered serious prejudice to the extent that it was impossible for a fair trial to be held.”When contacted after the ruling he said: “Mr Hewey was relieved and grateful that his case was further pursued on appeal.“If the conviction were allowed to stand, its implications could lead to many persons being unfairly prosecuted and convicted. This decision was the only fair approach in this matter,” said Mr Williams.“The criminal justice system is built on two pillars that aim to achieve the public’s trust and confidence — addressing criminal behaviour and fairness to individual rights. In this case, the latter prevailed.”