Muslim scholar Nezaam Ali, who was recently found guilty of the 2011 rape of a nine-year-old boy, has appealed his conviction and 45-year sentence, citing among other things bias by a member of the jury and his attorney’s failure to take direction.
In his notice of appeal, Ali has also charged that the trial judge failed to adequately put his defence to the jury.
These factors, he argues, militated against him having a fair trial.
Ali, 38, of 268 Section ‘C’ 5 South Turkeyen, was charged since 2012 with raping a total of nine boys.
At the conclusion of his first trial before Justice Navindra Singh and a 12-member jury on March 14th, Ali was found guilty of engaging in sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 by abusing his position of trust between December 5th, 2011, and December 31st, 2011.
Listing his grounds for appeal, Ali (the appellant) contends that there was a real possibility that the bias of a member of the jury affected the impartiality of the panel and the fairness of his trial, owing to the particular juror’s failure to make a certain key disclosure.
According to Ali, the juror failed to disclose that he attempted to forcefully shut down the masjid run by Ali shortly after his arrest, which he argues constituted a material irregularity at his trial, thus resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Ali contends, too, that his right to a fair trial was “irretrievably and adversely” affected by his attorney’s failure to take full instructions from him. In so doing, he said, the lawyer failed to object, among other things, to the admission into evidence of prejudicial material. Ali was represented by attorney Stanley Moore.
He complained, too, of Moore’s failure to adequately mitigate the sentence imposed upon him.
Ali’s appeal was filed by attorneys Latchmie Rahamat and Glenn Hanoman.
He explained in court documents, seen by this newspaper, that Rahamat was his lead defence
attorney, but that on the date fixed for trial she was undergoing a “major surgical procedure.”
Ali argues that in contravention of Article 144 (2) (d) of the Constitution, the trial judge erred by refusing his request for a short adjournment to ensure the attendance of counsel of his choice.
Article 144 (2) (d) states, “It shall be the duty of a court to ascertain the truth in every case
provided that every person who is charged with a criminal offence – shall be permitted to defend himself before the court in person or by a legal representative of his own choice.”
Contravention of this right, Ali argued, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The appellant is also of the view that the verdict of the jury should be set aside since Justice Singh failed to adequately put his case to the jury and further misdirected the jury with regards to the medical evidence presented in his case.
It was Ali’s defence during the trial that he could not have committed the crime because he has erectile dysfunction.
According to Ali, the jury’s verdict should be set aside on grounds of being “unreasonable having regard to the evidence.”
The appellant contends, too, that the mathematical formula used by the judge in passing the sentence of 45 years is without legal basis, while adding that he failed to take into account established sentencing guidelines, thus imposing a sentence inconsistent with current sentencing practices. Ali also argues that in passing sentence, Justice Singh failed to explore the possibility of ordering a probation report and to also take “other relevant factors” into consideration.
Against this background, the appellant has contended that the sentence was too “severe” in all the circumstances of the case.
On February 22nd, 2018, Magistrate Alex Moore recommitted Ali to stand trial for the alleged rape of nine boys, four years after he was originally committed to stand trial for the crime.
The long-awaited ruling was made subsequent to the case was ordered reopened in 2017, after it was discovered that key documents – birth certificates and medical certificates –were missing from the files.
On February 22nd, 2018, those said files were reconstructed.
The matter was scheduled to be heard last October but the trial judge, Justice Jo-Ann Barlow, could not proceed since she had advised on the case while at the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Justice Singh was later assigned the case.
The mother of three of the nine boys allegedly raped by Ali had filed reports at the Brickdam and Turkeyen police stations alleging that a man approached her sometime last month with an offer of $6 million to abandon the court proceedings.
