‘Bully’ gets appeal turned down

Eckron ‘Bully’ Jacobs of Peruvian Vale had his appeal against conviction turned down Tuesday afternoon when the Court of Appeal failed to find favour with the arguments advanced by his lawyer, Richard Williams. {{more}}
Earlier this year, the High Court convicted Jacobs on charges of aggravated burglary and indecent assault, sentencing him to five years and two years, respectively. A nine-member jury found him guilty of breaking into the home of Andrea Castello at Peruvian Vale, armed with a knife, and fondling her breast as she slept naked.
Williams contended that that particular case was one which dealt solely with credibility in that there was an allegation by the prosecution and a denial by the defence. He argued that there was no independent or corroborative evidence led by the prosecution. He challenged the court to quash the conviction if it found any misdirection by the trial Judge which would have affected the case, claiming that the trial was one on the “see-saw” scales”.
Williams contended that the trial Judge misdirected the jury in his summation when he said that the “police found certain items and signs of a break-in and that it was this evidence which confirms what the virtual complainant said”. He argued that there was no evidence of a break-in and that the Judge’s direction supported the prosecution’s allegation.
Appeal Court Judge, Justice Adrian Saunders drew Williams’ attention to the fact that the appellant owned the flashlight and knife which were recovered by police.
Williams further contended that the Judge’s direction bolstered the credibility of the virtual complainant and it went to the root of the matter. He also argued that the appellant was not represented by counsel at the trial and the Judge allowed certain information to be admitted into evidence which resulted in “manifest unfairness”.
He quoted the virtual complainant’s evidence, “My son woke up and told him ‘Bully, I will shoot you’”.
Williams said the virtual complainant’s son was four years of age.
Justice Saunders said that the ground of appeal was misdirection of fact. He said that there was misdirection but the question was whether that misdirection led to a miscarriage of justice. He concluded that it was hardly likely that the misdirection by the judge could have led to a miscarriage of justice. He added that the Judge’s summing up was fair. He also said that no argument was led on the sentences and the Appeal court believed it was fair.