During the second day of a trial to decide whether Paul David William Le Geyt (27) is guilty of illegal entry and larceny, the defendant claimed that he was going to the property to settle a dispute and said that drugs were being sent there.
He also said that it was his belief that the person ‘he had problems with’ lived there or nearby and claimed he went to the address with someone else, who entered the property. However, he has refused to name that person, saying his priority was ‘not being a rat’.
The defendant said that he initially went to the back of the Beaumont property before coming round to the front and waiting by the porch.
However, after his ‘friend’ saw two people at the back of the property, he ran out, giving him a bag which was later found to contain stolen property.
Mr Le Geyt told the jury that he did not realise the items were in it until he was arrested after trying to flee from the police on foot.
Mr Le Geyt revealed that he had a criminal record stretching back to 2001 and that, apart from one occasion when he was much younger, he had pleaded guilty to every charge.
However, on this occasion, he said that he had pleaded not guilty, as he knew that he was innocent.
‘I pleaded guilty every time because I know the earlier the guilty plea, the better it looks and it stops court time being wasted. I have not done something for a change,’ he said.
He also denied stealing a camera lens, Sequel watch and Gucci watch from the home, where the offence was allegedly committed.
Later, during an exchange between Mr Le Geyt and Crown Advocate Richard Pedley, prosecuting, where the defendant told him to ‘do his f***ing job’, Mr Le Geyt was asked why he was not able to identify the man he was with, and explained that this made it impossible to corroborate his story with anyone else’s version of events.
The defendant said: ‘That is because I could not live with putting someone else in jail.’
Advocate Pedley also asked Mr Le Geyt why his version of events given during police interview differed to the one he had provided during the trial. He said: ‘It is not a discrepancy, it is a completely different version of events.’
The defendant later said: ‘There was no DNA and no fingerprints which can be positively identified.
‘I have been willing from the start to give you everything you need – in interview I let you take my DNA and my fingerprints but I know I was not in there.’
He added: ‘I went into the porch but I did not go beyond the porch threshold – I am sorry, but that does not mean I have committed a crime.’
The trial continues.
