Lookout lied on oath about the extent of his involvement in violent Coventry robbery

Nathan Anderson admitted taking part in the raid in Holbrooks but claimed he did not know what the gang was going to do

A man acted as lookout while four masked raiders used a railway sleeper to smash their way into a house in Coventry where they punched and kicked their victim and slashed him with a craft knife.

But after pleading guilty to taking part in the robbery Nathan Anderson lied on oath about the extent of his involvement, claiming he had no idea what was going to happen.

That was rejected by a judge at Warwick Crown Court who jailed Anderson, aged 28, of Lower Ford Street, Hillfields, for eight years for his part in the robbery.

Anderson pleaded guilty on the basis that he had wanted to buy cocaine, and when he met one of the four at the Canal Basin he was told if he went with them he would get some.

He said he went with them into the alleyway where he was told to wait while they went into the house, and realised he was to act as lookout, but did not know what they were going to do.

But giving evidence about that, Anderson reverted to what he had told the police – that he had no involvement in the robbery and thought the men, despite their masks, were going to buy drugs.

Rejecting that, Judge Lockhart said: “Mr Anderson is a man who simply says the first thing that comes into his head.

“When confronted by the police he told a pack of lies, saying he was not involved and swearing on the lives of his family he had nothing to do with it, as he did on oath before me.”

Judge Lockhart pointed out he had wanted to hear evidence from Anderson so he could be satisfied the basis of plea that he was just the lookout was true.

Following an adjournment after that, the judge said: “Mr Anderson gave evidence and told me on oath he had not committed the offence. He gave evidence wildly inconsistent with his basis.

“He says all four men were masked when he got in the car, and he says he was with the men when they got out, but had no idea what they were going to do.

“He swore on his baby’s life he would never have got involved in a robbery. He now asserts his evidence was untrue and he wishes to revert to his original basis.

“I find he lied on oath to seek to persuade me he had little or no role in this. I utterly reject that.

“I find he got in the car and knew and intended he was going to play a part in a violent robbery of a man in his home at night. His planned role was to act as lookout, and that’s why he wasn’t masked.

“I am not sure he knew of the knife, but he was part of a planned and executed serious and sustained violent robbery.”

Silly boy. Lying to a court is never a good idea.

As I was once told by a Barrister, "leave the lying to me, I'm a professional!"