Man freed from prison after judge overturns robbery convictionBy Jonathan BellA flawed police identity parade helped put a man behind bars for more than a year and a half — but his conviction has been quashed by Chief Justice Ian Kawaley.According to lawyer Kamal Worrell, the clothing worn by robbery-accused Perry Simons in a police video parade drew unfair attention to his client.Mr Worrell hailed the ruling that freed Mr Simons, who was found to be wrongly convicted of aggravated robbery after getting sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in June, 2012.Since he was remanded on May 20, 2011, the wrongly convicted man ended up spending some 20 months in jail.In his ruling, Mr Justice Kawaley found that the convicted man’s clothing and appearance in the parade detracted from the weight of the identification evidence, although this in itself didn’t affect its admissibility.However, noting that Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo’s verdict described it as a case “wholly dependent upon identification evidence”, the Chief Justice said the magistrate did not appear to have appreciated the complaint.Also of concern was that the complainant in the robbery, which allegedly occurred on March 17, 2011 outside the Maximart supermarket in Sandys, gave evidence in court that he didn’t notice any tattoos on his attacker.However, Mr Simons sports prominent forearm tattoos reading “Still rise” and “Against all odds”.The victim in the case, who was in a van outside the supermarket at 5pm, described his assailant as wearing “a light coloured T-shirt”.The attacker was said to have placed a blade to his throat as another man came to the driver’s window and removed a necklace from around his neck.Noting that “T-shirt in my view suggests a short-sleeved round-necked shirt”, Mr Justice Kawaley pointed out that the evidence as presented in court also cast doubt on the identification.The Chief Justice quashed Simons’ conviction, ordering no retrial.Mr Worrell last night said his client was weighing the option of pursuing civil action against police.“He had no problem with doing the ID parade,” Mr Worrell said, noting that Mr Simons had volunteered to take part. “It’s consistent with what a person would do if they’re not guilty. From his angle, he did everything right.“But what really went wrong in the PROMAT video identification was the horrible way it was set up. He was the only one there in a white T-shirt.“He was picked up two months after the alleged robbery. At the time he was picked up, he had on a white T-shirt, which is a not uncommon piece of attire.“But the witness had said he had originally been wearing a white T-shirt.“The identification officer is trained and certified in the conduct of PROMAT identification procedures.“He should have known that something was wrong with this man being the only one in the white shirt.“Even if the witness had not mentioned the white shirt, he would have stuck out anyway. What’s worse is that he had not been given notice that the assailant had on a white shirt.“None of that was considered. There was a whole host of breaches of code after that, but the most material one is him sticking out in the white shirt.”Mr Simons was able to appeal his conviction for robbery and possession of a bladed article only because he was lucky enough to get legal aid, the lawyer added.“Had he not been given legal aid, it’s unlikely that the appeal would ever even taken off. He could have remained sitting there convicted of this.“The real issue here is situations where the person does not have the means to bring an appeal. People are actually being convicted for stuff like this.“That makes it ever more important, with the rise of violent crime and a lot of pressure being put on police to make arrest. When you have that pressure, then the risk of them trampling on individual rights becomes more real.”Mr Simons also had a two-year suspended sentence from 2010 which would have followed consecutively on his other jail time.Describing his client as “emotional and overwhelmed” by the decision, Mr Worrell questioned how many others might have been convicted under similar circumstances.He added: “I’d go on the record as saying that all credit is due to the Chief Justice, not only for the decision but how he supports it. That affords a certain degree of guidance for the courts and practitioners.“And once they can see he has taken the fair approach, you get more confidence and trust in the system that will be critical, going forward, if we’re going to hold this together at the seams.“On one hand, we have to deal with crime, but on the other hand, we must jealously guard the individual rights of everyone, and let everyone know that they will get a fair shot.”