Two law students have claimed an unlikely victory against the Department of Public Prosecutions after one was found guilty of careless driving at Magistrates’ Court.

Jahquille Stowe teamed up with law graduate and former president of the Law Student’s Association of Bermuda, Audley Quallo, to challenge Mr Stowe’s conviction before Chief Justice Ian Kawaley at the Supreme Court earlier this month.

They researched previous cases to back up their argument and provided three grounds of appeal, one of which found favour with the Chief Justice who dismissed the conviction and set aside the $1,000 fine and 12 demerit points imposed by Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo.

Mr Stowe, 24, who took a foundation course in law at Buckingham University between 2010 and 2011, told The Royal Gazette that he was “relieved and happy” about the ruling.

“This was more about the principle than anything else,” he said. “I did not feel that the magistrate had taken account of my side of the story and I believed I had done nothing wrong.

“So Audley and I spent a lot of time preparing the appeal and making sure we stood the best possible chance of succeeding.

“I still have hopes of pursuing a legal career down the line, and although there is a place for me at Buckingham to take the LLB law degree I have not been able to take it up because of financial constraints.

“A lot of what we did in this appeal was good experience for a career I still want to pursue.”

Last December, Mr Stowe was convicted of driving without due care following a trial before Magistrate Tokunbo in which he represented himself.

The charge related to an accident between Mr Stowe, who was riding a motorbike, and a van that occurred on North Shore Road near the junction with Blackwatch Pass.

After being found guilty Mr Stowe lodged an appeal against his conviction that was heard on April 5.

In his judgment Justice Kawaley said: “At first blush this appeal seemed like an unmeritorious attempt to invite this court to challenge factual findings which it was open to the learnt magistrate to make.

“However, two unexpected developments at the hearing disrupted this initial view and complicated what I had assumed to be a simple picture.

“Firstly, Mr Quallo, a law student, persuaded the court to exercise its discretion in favour of permitting him to address the court as the appellant’s McKenzie friend.

“Secondly, the appellant through Mr Quallo applied to supplement the record through an informal transcript prepared from the recording of the trial. As a result the merits of the appeal, by the end of the hearing, were far more evenly balanced that had appeared to be the case at the outset.”

He added: “Mr Quallo assisted both the appellant and the court through his well-researched and persuasive submissions in a case where the appellant assumed the onerous burden of undermining essentially factual findings made at trial.”

In his ruling the Chief Justice pointed to two factual findings that Mr Tokunbo made in the trial; namely that there was no evidence of the vehicle stopping abruptly and no evidence to support Mr Stowe’s assertion that the complainant was careless.

He said: “Regretfully, the mistaken finding that there was no evidence capable of supporting the appellant’s defence not only suggests that the learnt Magistrate failed to record sufficient findings as to why he rejected the defence case.

“It also raises doubts as to whether or not he fully appreciated the main thrust of appellant’s case and fairly assessed it.

The Chief Justice added: “It is impossible for this court to properly be satisfied that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred in circumstances where the basis on which the defence case was rejected by the trial judge is neither self-evident nor sufficiently explained.

“For these reasons the appeal against conviction is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed in the Magistrates’ Court are set aside.”

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