The Court of Appeal is expected to deliver its decision in an appeal of man serving a 22-year sentence for raping an elderly neighbour during a home invasion on April 12.
Appellate Judges Prakash Moosai, Charmaine Pemberton and Gillian Lucky reserved their decision in Allison Paul’s appeal, after hearing submissions from his attorneys and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) during a virtual hearing yesterday.
In March 2018, Paul was convicted of burglary and rape over an incident on June 1, 2006.
The 68-year-old victim was asleep at her home when she awoke to a noise in the kitchen. She attempted to open her bedroom door and was attacked by a man, who began choking her.
The victim claimed that she recognised the intruder was Paul, her next-door neighbour for almost a year, as he put on the lights in the bedroom before raping her on the bed.
She claimed that after he raped her, he asked for $450 to buy a windshield for his car.
After she told him she did not have any money, he allegedly threatened to kill her if she reported the incident and left.
Paul testified in his defence during his trial before former High Court Judge and current Appellate Judge Maria Wilson and denied any wrongdoing, as he claimed that he was mistakenly identified by the victim.
Presenting submissions in his appeal yesterday, Paul’s lawyer Daniel Khan claimed that the trial was unfair, as prosecutors were allowed to use the victim’s deposition, from her testimony in the preliminary inquiry of the case, because she passed away a year before the trial.
“He was unable to confront his accuser,” Khan said.
Khan also complained that the victim’s evidence over identifying Paul was weak and that she failed to directly testify that Paul put his penis in her vagina without her consent.
“You can draw reasonable inferences but not for crucial evidence,” Khan said.
Khan’s claim over the need for direct evidence over the issue was challenged by Justice Lucky and the other members of the appeal panel.
“That violates and destroys what circumstantial evidence is,” Justice Lucky said.
Khan also took issue with the fact that Justice Wilson allowed bad character evidence in the form of a woman who claimed to have been raped by Paul in an incident in 2001, which is yet to go on trial.
Khan suggested that such should have been excluded, as it sought to bolster the weak evidence against his client.
Responding to the submissions, Assistant DPP Nigel Pilgrim dismissed all the grounds raised by Khan, which he claimed were unmeritorious.
Pilgrim strongly disagreed with the submissions on the victim’s identification of Paul, as he pointed out that the victim’s claims were corroborated by oral admissions which Paul allegedly gave to police after he was arrested.
“Direct evidence may be even more faulty as it comes from one source,” Pilgrim said.
He claimed that Justice Wilson had “painstakingly” considered the evidence in the case and the legal issues before allowing the deposition to be used.
He also stated that the bad character evidence was not vital to the State’s case against Paul.
Paul was also represented by Ula Nathai-Lutchman and Arissa Maharaj. —Derek Achong
