The Court of Appeal found that a judge was wrong to dismiss — on the basis of missed deadlines — the appeal of a man convicted of sex offences.

Shuja Amon Muhammad was convicted by magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo in 2023 of touching two girls for a sexual purpose between August 1 and September 30, 2021 and intruding on a young girl’s privacy after a separate trial that same year.

He had sought to appeal both convictions in the Supreme Court, but his appeal was dismissed by Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe after deadlines for legal submissions were repeatedly missed by Elizabeth Christopher, who represented Muhammad in the Supreme Court.

In a decision handed down last week, the appeal court found that Mr Justice Wolffe should not have dismissed the case without hearing arguments and sent the matter back to the Supreme Court.

In a written judgment Sir Christopher Clarke, the Court of Appeal president, said that it was clear that the need to deal with cases expeditiously was on the mind of Mr Justice Wolffe.

Sir Christopher wrote: “No legal system should tolerate with equanimity prolonged delays in the resolution of appeals.

“Delay imposes great strain both on the appellant whose claim that he has been wrongly convicted has not been determined and on the victims of crime for whom there is no finality until any appeal has been finally determined.

“In his ruling the judge said that he was acutely aware, as I am sure he was, of the seriousness of this matter not only for the appellant but also for the victims in the case.

“Further, if hearings cannot take place on the appointed date and the hearing is adjourned, other litigants whose cases could have been heard on that date will have lost the opportunity for their case to be heard then.”

However, he wrote it was not as clear whether Mr Justice Wolffe had fully considered the consequences of dismissing the appeal without hearing the arguments.

Sir Christopher said it was not apparent that the judge had sufficiently taken into account that dismissing the appeal would leave the appellant convicted of serious crimes of which he sought to show he was innocent.

He said the judge also had not fully considered that while the failure to comply with orders was, in essence, the responsibility of his advocate, or that none of the orders specifically stated that the appeal could be dismissed if not complied with.

Sir Christopher said that in light of the combination of circumstances, he did not find it was justifiable for the judge to have dismissed the appeals and ordered the matter to be referred back to the Supreme Court.

He also warned Ms Christopher that while she was very busy during the latter half of 2024, her lack of communication with the Crown and the court about her difficulties was not acceptable.

Separately, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeallaunched by the Crown against the sentence of Ronald Forde.

Forde, a teacher, pleaded guilty last year to charges of luring while in a position of trust, sexual exploitation and accessing child pornography.

The case marked the first conviction in Bermuda for the offence of luring, which was only added to the Criminal Code in 2020, and prosecutors had called for a sentence of ten to 12 years for the crime.

However, Mr Justice Wolffe sentenced Forde to three years for luring, four years for sexual exploitation and two years for accessing child pornography, with the sexual exploitation sentence running consecutive to the other two — which would run concurrently — for a total sentence of seven years.

A decision handed down last week said that while the Crown did not object to the overall sentence, it argued on appeal that a stronger sentence should have been delivered for the offence of luring, noting that the sentence could be used as a benchmark for future cases.

The court, however, found that it was “wholly inappropriate” for the Crown to use the appeal to obtain an “advisory opinion” when it did not disagree with the overall sentence.

The judgment said: “In circumstances where, as the Crown accepts, there is no basis for the court increasing the totality of the sentence so far as this particular respondent is concerned, it is, in this court’s judgment, an abuse of process to use the section in an attempt to obtain guidance from the court in relation to future offences.”

The appeal panel also noted that it would be almost impossible to lay down guidelines or general rules in such cases as they are all dependant on the facts of the case.

Its judgment said: “The decision and judgments in this case, whether at first instance or on the application to this court, cannot and should not be used as a guideline in relation to the specific offence of luring.”

The court did find that it would have been better for the judge to have imposed concurrent sentences for the luring and exploitation charges given the facts of the case, but said there was no basis on which to conclude that the totality of the sentence, or the sentence for luring, was manifestly inadequate.

In a third judgment, the court allowed an appeal to increase the period of disqualification dealt to a man convicted of his second drink-driving offence.

Corey Sousa was found guilty of driving while over the legal blood-alcohol level in an incident on July 28, 2022.

He was fined $1,800 and disqualified from driving for 18 months, but the Crown argued that he should have been disqualified for three years because he was previously convicted of driving while impaired in 2017.

In a judgment, Sir Christopher wrote that while there was a provision that only allowed higher penalties if the second offence occurred within two years of the first, it did not apply to the period of disqualification for driving under the influence.

While Sousa’s 18-month period of disqualification concluded earlier this year, the court ordered that he be disqualified from driving all vehicles until November 14, 2026, when the three-year period would have expired.

• 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