A man who brutally beat and stabbed a 63-year-old woman to steal $100 has lost an appeal against conviction.

Jamar Malik Dill was sentenced to eight years behind bars in 2012 after being convicted of robbery by a majority verdict.

During his Supreme Court trial the court had heard that the victim, Cleta Burgess, went to a friend’s house in Pembroke on the evening of May 20, 2011, where they played cards until the early hours of the morning.

She left the home and walked to Berkeley Road to catch a taxi, holding a $100 bill in her hand to pay for the fare. At around 5am, while she was waiting for the taxi, she was approached by the defendant, who was riding a motorcycle.

He asked her if she could break a $100 bill for two $50s. After she said she couldn’t, he told her he wanted the $100 bill she was holding and got off the bike to get it.

There was a struggle, during which he sat on the victim, struck her in the face and stabbed her before taking off his helmet and striking her with it twice. He then left with the $100 bill, leaving her lying in the road while saying that he didn’t mean to hurt her.

Ms Burgess suffered multiple injuries including a displaced fracture of the right ankle and a fractured wrist. She received several stitches for her injuries, and needed crutches for four months after the attack.

Dill was arrested several days later and positively identified by the victim in an identification parade.

During his subsequent trial he alleged, through defence lawyer Shade Subair, that Ms Burgess was a liar and a drug dealer — accusations which allowed his own past convictions for violence and dishonesty to be put before the jury.

At the close of his trial, Dill was convicted by a verdict of 11 to one, but he launched an appeal against that conviction.

New defence lawyer Kamal Worrell argued before the Court of Appeal that Dill had not been informed that attacking the credibility of Ms Burgess would cause him to lose his shield.

The Court of Appeal heard that when Mr Worrell took over as Dill’s counsel, he received a number of papers including an unsigned letter dated two days before the trial in which Ms Subair explained that scrutinising the victim’s character would allow prosecutors to make the jury aware of Dill’s previous convictions.

In a written decision, Justice Sir Scott Baker wrote: “The production of the unsigned document leads, so it seems to me, to the inevitable inference that Ms Subair was aware of the need to discuss the consequences of running a defence that involved attacking the character of Ms Burgess.

“It is but a short step to concluding she did indeed, as she says, have such a discussion with the appellant.”

The judges also noted that while Dill claimed the first time he was aware that he would “lose his shield” was when the judge gave a warning, there was no reference to Dill losing his shield until later in the trial, according to a transcript of proceedings.

Given the facts in the case, the Court found that attacking Ms Burgess’ credibility was the only possible line of defence, noting that Dill and Ms Burgess knew each other and Ms Burgess had suffered serious injuries in the altercation.

“The only defence that could be run was that Ms Burgess had, for some reason, fabricated that the appellant was her assailant,” Mr Justice Baker wrote.

Under the circumstances, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

• On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on what we consider to be a controversial or contentious story. As we are legally liable for any defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.