Tarish Pit men charged with $14,000 burglary of dwelling of Chinese national

Alvin Esprit, 27 and Marvin Boyd, 24, of Tarish Pit, have been charged for the alleged burglary of the dwelling house of a Chinese national.

The young men were brought before the court yesterday, February 8, 2021, where the charge was read to them. However, since the matter is indictable, they were not required to enter a plea.

According to the information obtained in court, on February 3, 2021, at Old Street, Roseau, Esprit and Boyd are said to have entered, as trespassers, the home of Kun Wang.

Therein, they reportedly stole, EC$12,350.00 in cash, one bag valued at EC$5.00, an umbrella, a glucose monitor valued at EC$200.00, a purse, one cell phone valued at EC$1,500.00 and a citizen watch valued at US$200.00, all to the total value of $14,625.00 and at the time of entry had a pistol in their possession.

At the hearing, Police Prosecutor, Inspector Davidson Cadette, objected to bail in respect of both of the accused and as grounds for his decision, stated, “the offense is of a serious nature, one to be heard by a judge and jury and has a serious penalty attached if they are found guilty.”

He said both accused are currently on bail for similar offenses and they would be in clear violation of any condition not to re-offend while on bail. Cadette added that Esprit and Boyd have a criminal history as they are well known to the court and they have the propensity for re-offending, if they were to be granted bail.

However, in the process of listing additional grounds for objection, presiding Magistrate Michael Laudat stopped the Prosecutor and highlighted section 6 of the new Bail Act 20.

Laudat stated that according to the new bail act, the court is not obligated to hear a bail application for certain matters and may refuse an application for bail.

Defense Attorney, Wayne Norde, argued that the court is misinterpreting the act, as, according to him, an application can be dismissed but not denied.

Following arguments by both parties, the Magistrate gave the defense two weeks until February 25, to file submissions for their bail application; the Prosecution has until March 11, to respond and the court will give its ruling on March 18, 2021.

The Preliminary Inquiry (PI) is set for June 21, 2021, to determine if there is enough evidence in the matter to be tried at the High court.

Disclaimer: The comments on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of DominicaNewsOnline.com/Duravision Inc. All comments are approved by DominicaNewsOnline.com before they are posted. We never censor based on political or ideological points of view, but we do try to maintain a sensible balance between free speech and responsible moderating.

We will delete comments that:

  • violate or infringe the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or include personal attacks
  • a reasonable person would consider abusive or profane
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote hatred of any kind
  • refer to people arrested or charged with a crime as though they had been found guilty
  • contain links to "chain letters", pornographic or obscene movies or graphic images
  • are excessively long and off-topic

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.


  1. Chung dog
    February 9, 2021

    The Chinese have been trying to take Taiwan for the longest time unsuccessfully. But was able to take Dominica without even threatening. They are the #1 thieves in the entire human race, and counterfeit in chief. They should go back to China.

  2. Mangrove forest
    February 9, 2021

    Crimes against Chinese nationals are always investigated by the police and brought before court. Had a Dominican suffered burglary of its dwelling house, nothing would have happened. Dominicans, Skerrit made you 3rd class citizens in your own country!!

  3. Lennie
    February 9, 2021

    In regards to the application for bail. I am troubled that a magistrate does not understand such basic tenets of the law.
    Clearly and based on the facts stated the accused would not meet the requirements for bail but a denial of hearing such application is clearly wrong.

  4. Ibo France
    February 9, 2021

    There are some young men who are determined to make their living from preying on the backs of hardworking people.

    Most times it takes years of hard work to accumulate your possessions. It’s so unfair for strong, lazy young men, in the prime of their life, to criminally deprive you of your belongings earned from multiple years of blood, sweat and tears.

    If found guilty, the judge should banish them from society for a very lengthy period of time – maximum penalty.

    • February 10, 2021

      Agreed, especially since they were already out on bail for previous offenses and they had a pistol on them. I mean, come on.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

:) :-D :wink: :( 8-O :lol: :-| :cry: 8) :-? :-P :-x :?: :oops: :twisted: :mrgreen: more »

 characters available