A FINGERPRINT on a pharmacy bag links Wesley Ceillam to the burglary of his grandmother’s tenants’ home, the Royal Court heard yesterday. But Mr Ceillam, 28, has denied breaking into Roy and Mary Holland’s home on 2 April last year and taking a 300ml bottle of liquid morphine.
Advocate David Domaille, said the fingerprints were on the bag because Mr Holland used regularly to give Mr Ceillam lifts in his car as a favour to his landlord and that one of those lifts would have coincided with Mr Holland collecting his wife’s medication.
Advocate Domaille said this made it quite plausible that Mr Ceillam would have come into contact with the bag by, for example, picking it up to take his seat.
The court heard how on the afternoon of 2 April, Mr and Mrs Holland had returned home to find that the window of their spare bedroom had been forced open and that the morphine had been taken from a chest of drawers in their bedroom.
The police were informed and on 3 April they attended the property on the coast at Cobo and took the pharmacy bag.
Tests later found five sets of fingerprints on it. One of the sets was Mr Ceillam’s.
Three of the prints were insufficient for comparison and police do not have a match for the remaining set.
But it was not until the following day that police found the pharmacy bag that had previously contained the morphine. There were no prints on it good enough for analysis.
Advocate Chris Dunford, prosecuting, told the court that the evidence of the fingerprints was compelling and that just because Mr Ceillam’s fingerprints were not found on the bag that contained the morphine, it did not mean he had not touched it.
On hearing evidence from Mr Holland, Advocate Dunford said the witness had told the court that there would never have been an occasion when he would have given Mr Ceillam a lift at the same time as picking up his wife’s medication.
Mr Holland added that Mr Ceillam had never been into their home since they had moved into the property.
Advocate Domaille said the fact that the result of one set of fingerprints was still outstanding meant that they could easily belong to the actual burglar.
He said the evidence was too circumstantial and in no way put Mr Ceillam in the property on 2 April.
The jurats are due to deliver their verdict this afternoon. Judge Russell Finch is presiding.
Loading ...
Share this article:
What are these?