DPP appeals acquittal of British terror suspect Jermaine Grant

The Director of Public Prosecutions has appealed the acquittal of British terror suspect Jermaine Grant of nine charges he was facing at a magistrate’s court.

Through Principal Prosecution Counsel Jami Yamina, the DPP wants the High Court to reverse the decision of the magistrate and substitute the order for acquittal in each count with a finding of guilt and consequently sentence Mr Grant.

Last week, Shanzu Senior Resident Magistrate Anastasia Ndung’u acquitted Mr Grant of the charges, among them making a false statement for register of birth.

The DPP said the magistrate erred in law by acquitting Mr Grant, having found offences had been committed, and hence the acquittal amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

“The magistrate erred in law by acquitting the respondent on all the nine counts against the weight of evidence,” said Mr Yamina.

Mr Yamina further argued that Ms Ndung’u erred in law by acquitting the respondent having found the accomplice’s evidence was credible and corroborated hence the same could form a basis for a conviction.

MAGISTRATE ERRED

He said that the magistrate erred by failing to find that from the nature of the offences, by placing the respondent to his defence and failure to tender any evidence, a conviction would have followed by way of the provisions of Section 111 and 119 of the Evidence Act.

According to the DPP, the magistrate took into account irrelevant considerations that had no factual basis therefore reaching wrong conclusions in law hence the entire decision amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

“The trial court erred in law when it misdirected itself on the nature of evidence and finding that the case rested on circumstantial evidence whereas there was sufficient direct evidence to support the case,” said Mr Yamina.

Mr Yamina further argued that the magistrate erred by holding that there was no evidence tendered by the prosecution to prove that the respondent did not encourage the commission of the crimes.

According to the judgment by Ms Ndung’u, the prosecution did not prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

“In the end, I agree that the accused may be a prime suspect in the crime that took place, but a conviction cannot be founded on mere suspicion however strong,” said Ms Ndung’u.

The magistrate further stated that the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell far below the threshold of standard proof.

In her judgment, the magistrate said there were coexisting circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference of guilt.

Ms Ndung’u said that three things attributable to the accused as far as the case was concerned were that he was in the company of a man by the name Mustapha when he met three witnesses, did not speak to them and he could not speak Swahili.

Mr Grant alias Ali Mohammed Ibrahim, alias Peter Joseph alias Robert Mwakio Matata was charged with attempting to procure a Kenyan birth certificate by falsely pretending to be a Kenyan.