R. v. Sajed Mahmood Minhas

CACC000379/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No 379
(Criminal)

-------------------

Coram: Bokhary, J.A. in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 6 August 1996

Date of Ruling: 6 August 1996

----------------------

R U L I N G

-----------------------

Bokhary, J.A.:

1. This is an application for bail pending appeal. It cannot be said that the whole of the sentence or even a very substantial percentage of it would have been served by the time the appeal is heard. The only question therefore is whether it can be said that the appeal shows strong prospects of success.

2. The sole ground of appeal is put in this way by the applicant himself, and I quote from his written submission of today's date:

"My Counsel had clearly and negligently ignored my explicit instructions by failing to call three witnesses whose testimony would have contradicted that given by the complainant and supported my innocence beyond any reasonable doubt."

3. The difficulty is this. There is no admission by counsel that he had ignored any instructions; and unless I am prepared to say - which I am not - that it is inherently highly probable that counsel had ignored the applicant's instructions, then I cannot say that this appeal shows strong prospects of success.

4. The applicant being in person, I have to say this for his benefit and information. Even if he is granted bail pending appeal, if his appeal ultimately fails, he will have to go back and serve his sentence. At the moment, his attention is focused on bail pending appeal. But ultimately his attention has to be focused on succeeding in his appeal if he possibly can. I can tell him that his present ground of appeal has no prospects of success whatsoever unless it is supported by some evidence from him and involves some attempt to get his counsel's reaction to the allegations which he is making.

5. As far as this application for bail is concerned, there is no basis on which I can properly grant bail at this stage. But quite apart from bail, I ought to help the applicant in relation to his appeal itself. If he just leaves things as they are, when his application for leave to appeal comes on, all that would happen is that either it will be dismissed summarily or everything will be delayed while the Court makes enquiries of the applicant's former counsel as to what he says about the allegation that he had ignored the applicant's instructions.

6. If the applicant now obtains the services of other lawyers, they will know what to do. But if he continues to represent himself, he would be well advised to write to his previous counsel and solicitors setting out in detail what his allegations are and asking them to comment in detail. Whether their answers will support his case, I do not know. But he will not get anywhere whatsoever unless he at least makes some attempt to get their reaction to his allegations. They will not ignore his letters if he writes sensible ones. One of the reasons why they will not ignore his letters is because he will be provided with a transcript of the ruling which I am now giving. And his former counsel and solicitors will be able to see therefrom that it is upon my suggestion that he writes to them.

7. That is the best I can do in order to assist the applicant who is in person. As far as his application for bail itself is concerned, I see no basis on which, on the present material, he can properly be granted bail pending appeal.

8. I refuse bail.

(K Bokhary)

9. Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Sajed Mahmood Minhas - Applicant in person

Mr Y M Liu (of the Attorney General's Chambers) for the respondent