Man denied extension to appeal sex-assault conviction

The Court of Appeal has denied a man's application to extend the time for filing an appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The ruling, delivered by Justice of Appeal Malcolm Holdip on December 16, concluded that the appellant failed to provide sufficient grounds for the delay, and found no reasonable prospect of success in his appeal.

The appellant, convicted on May 31, 2023, and sentenced to three years of hard labour on July 26, 2023, claimed the delay in filing his appeal was due to misinformation from prison officers and being quarantined during his remand.

However, Holdip found his explanations lacked adequate detail and did not justify the year-long delay.

The court also dismissed arguments regarding inconsistent jury verdicts, unfair amendments to the indictment and the exclusion of evidence during trial, citing the absence of trial transcripts and insufficient supporting material.

Holdip noted that the intended appellant had already served most of his sentence, further reducing the case for an extension.

The application was denied, with Holdip emphasising the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the absence of a strong case to suggest a miscarriage of justice.

“This court is of the view that the appellant has not provided substantial grounds for the delay and in all the circumstances, where the majority of his sentence has already been served, it would not be in the interest of justice to interfere with the findings of the court below at this stage.”

The judge added, “This court notes the appellant relied on the information provided to his detriment and recognises, on the totality of the issues raised, the earnestness of the appellant to challenge his conviction despite serving the majority of his sentence...

“The delay between conviction and sentence resulted in confusion where he relied on the information provided by untrained legal persons while on remand and in quarantine which resulted in him being unable to file his notice of appeal."

He said the court had "taken judicial notice of the failings of the current prison administration in the circumstances of this case.

“This court agrees with counsel for the appellant that the need for urgency superseded the requirement for details in the appellant’s mind and as a result, this court will not penalise the appellant for choosing this option.”

Attorney Renuka Rambhajan represented the appellant. Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Danielle Thompson appeared for the State.