The Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction of a man caught with a loaded firearm during 2021 Cup Match celebrations.

Jaron Roberts was found guilty of possessing a firearm and ammunition in St George’s in an incident on July 31, 2021.

He launched an appeal against his conviction on the weapons charges, arguing that he was denied the right to a fair trial and that his lawyer, Victoria Greening, had been ineffective.

In a decision handed down last week, the Court of Appeal rejected the claims and upheld his conviction, finding that there was nothing to suggest Ms Greening had acted incompetently.

Sir Gary Hickinbottom, Justice of Appeal, wrote: “On the basis of all the evidence, I do not consider that the conduct of Ms Greening could be characterised as flagrantly incompetent, or indeed at all incompetent.

“Nor do I consider that any conduct on her part was such as to render the convictions unsafe or the trial process unfair or, even arguably, amounting to a miscarriage of justice.”

During the trial, the court heard that Roberts was stopped by police on that afternoon in the midst of a motorcade held in celebration of Somerset’s Cup Match victory.

While Roberts was initially ticketed for traffic offences, the court heard that officers warned him that he would be arrested over a warrant.

He briefly resisted being handcuffed but then began to struggle against the officers after they questioned him about the contents of his backpack.

A search of the bag revealed a blue balaclava and a plastic sandwich container, which contained a firearm loaded with three rounds of ammunition.

In addition to the firearms and ammunition charges, Roberts was accused of possessing more than 20 grams of cannabis and drug equipment, to which he pleaded guilty before his trial began.

During the trial, Roberts accepted that the backpack was his, along with the sandwich container found to contain the loaded gun, but he claimed he had no idea how the firearm came to be inside it.

He told the court that before his arrest, he had set the bag down near Clearwater Beach while he did bike tricks.

Ms Greening noted a lack of DNA or fingerprint evidence linking Roberts to the weapon, arguing that he may have resisted because he did not want to be arrested on a holiday weekend, but the jury found him guilty by a unanimous verdict.

He was subsequently sentenced to 16 years in prison for the firearm and ammunition, with the drug charges garnering a 12-month sentence to run consecutively.

The conviction was Roberts’s second for a firearm-related offence. In 2012, he was sentenced to spend 11 years behind bars for a string of armed robberies committed with an imitation firearm.

Susan Mulligan, for Roberts, argued before the Court of Appeal that Roberts was denied a fair trial because he had been charged under Section 20(1) of the Firearms Act 1973, which is specific to those who have previous convictions for firearms-related offences.

She argued that the section was unconstitutional as it could result in the disclosure of his previous convictions to the jury, tainting proceedings.

Ms Mulligan also claimed that Ms Greening had only limited communication with Roberts and did not adequately inform him of his right to remain silent during trial and the ramifications of giving “good character” evidence, which could result in the jury learning of his previous conviction.

The issue arose during the trial after Roberts told the court he was a part of the “bikes up, guns down” movement and had actively worked against gun violence.

In the wake of the comments, it was agreed that the Crown could establish that Roberts had been arrested previously, but the details of the 2012 conviction were still kept from the jury.

In the Court of Appeal judgment, Sir Gary wrote that there had been ample discussion in the court about the consequences of assertions of “good character” during the trial and Roberts could not say he was unaware.

He said that Ms Greening appeared to be able to present Roberts’s version of events firmly and coherently and, given the evidence in the case, Roberts would have inevitably been convicted had he elected not to take the stand.

Sir Gary also said that the Supreme Court had taken reasonable steps to ensure fairness in the circumstances.

While he said that a previous conviction was an element that needed to be proved in cases tried under Section 20(1), it had been agreed between parties that Roberts would accept the 2012 conviction without the jury being informed.

Sir Gary wrote: “The appellant now says that Ms Greening proceeded without his instructions but, on any view, to proceed in this way was reasonable and did not arguably result in any procedural unfairness to the appellant.”

In all of the circumstances, Sir Gary said, none of the grounds of appeal had been made good and that the convictions were sound.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers