INTHE COURT OF APPEAL AT SUVA FUL ISLANDS APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Appeal No. AAUI1 of 2022 INTHE MATTER of Section 21 of the Court of Appeal Act. and IN THE MATTER of an Appeal agains! the Decision of Honourable Justice Rajasinghe in the High Court of Fiji at Lautoka in Criminal case No, HAC161 of 2019. BETWEEN: MUHAMMED RAHEESH ISOOF of Natobua Correctional Centre, Lautoka, ‘APPELLANT ALND: RESPONDENT AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL AND APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL ICTION Al I 10: The Registrar of the Court of Appeal, NOJICE is hereby given that MOHAMMED RAHEESH ISOOF of Natabva Correctional Centre, Lautoka, pursuant to Section 21 (1) of the Court of Appeal Act, Cap 12 (as amended) appeats to the Court of Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court, Lautoka on a question of mixed laws and facts and iaws as follows: -THAT the Appellant MOHAMMED RAHEESH ISOOF was charged on five (5) counts of Murder and one (1) count of attempted murder, and the Appellant was convicted before the High Court at Lautoka on the 19% day of January, 2022 of the following offence. First Count Statement of Offence MAURDER: - Contrary to Section 237 of the Crimes Act 2009. Particulars of Offence MUHAMMED RAHEESH ISQOE on the 25h of August, 2019 at Nadi in the Western Division, murdered NIRMAL KUMAR. Second Count Statement of Olfence MURDER: - Contrary to Section 237 of the Crimes Act 2009. Particulars of Offence MAUHAMMED RAHEESH ISOOF on the 25+ of August, 2019 ot Nadi in the Wester Division, murdered USHA DEVL ‘Third Count Statement of Offence PAURDER: - Contrary to Section 237 of the Crimes Act 2009. Particulars of Offence MUHAMMED RAHEESH ISOOF on the 25" of August, 2019 at Nadi in the Westem Division, murdered NILESHN! KAJAL,Fourth Count Statement of Offence MURDER: - Contrary to Section 237 of the Crimes Act 2009. Particulars of Offence MUHAMMED RAHEESH ISOOF on the 25 of August, 2019 at Nadi in the Western Division, murdered SANAH SINGH. Fifth Count Statement of Offence MURDER: - Contrary to Section 237 of the Crimes Act 2009. Particulars of Offence MUHAMMED RAHEESH ISQOF on the 25h of August, 2019 at Nadi in the Westem Division, murdered SAMARAH SINGH. Sith_Count Statement of Offence ATTEMPTED MURDER: - Contrary to Section 44 and 237 of the Crimes Act 2009, Particulars of Offence MUHAMMED RAHEESH ISOOF on the 25h of August, 2019 at Nadi in the Wester Division, cHempted to murder SAMAIRA KUMAR at Nausori Highlands. THAT upon conviction, the Appellant was on the 214 day of January, 2022 sentenced as follows: -_-n-eoe inners nnniarseningtcnnaes tices - First Count of Murder: Life Imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years to be served before a pardon may be considered, ii, Second Count of Murder: Life Imprisonment with a minimum. term of 20 years to be served before a pardon may be considered, iii, Third Count of Murder: Life Imprisonment with a minimum term. of 20 years to be served before a pardon may be considered, iv, Fourth Count of Murder: Life Imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years to be served before o pardon may be considered, Me Fifth Count of Murder: Life Imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years to be served before a pardon may be considered, vi Sixth Count of Attempted Murder: Life Imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years to be served before a parden may be considered, THE abovenamed Appeliant hereby gives you notice that he desires to Appeal to the Court of Appeal against:- (a) His Convietion, (b) His Sentence GROUNDS OF APPEAL MATERIAL NON-DISCLOSURE THAT the Leamed Trial Judge ered in law in continuing with the trial despite the fact it was brought to his attention by the Counsel of the Appellant that the prosecution has failed fo serve photographic and video evidence given to the police by the witnesses which may have exonerate the appellant on all the charges against him. 4ad ie >» Fat N. E THAT the Leamed Tai Judge erred in law and in fact in failing to adequately and/or sufficiently analyze all the evidence in its totality in convicting the Appellant. ADEQUATE TIME AND FACILITIES AND FAIR TRIAL (Contrary to Section 14(1}{¢) of the Constitution of Fiji) HAT the Leaned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact by not giving adequate time and facilities to the Appellant to prepare give proper Instruction to his Solicitors in his defence and therefore was denied fair trial. DEFECTIVE CHARGE BEFORE THE COURT THAT the Leomed Trial Judge ered in law and in fact in convicting jhe Appellant when the evidence adduced in court does not support the charges laid against the Appellant for the offence of multiple Murder and Attempted murder. The Appellant was wrongfully charged for the alleged offences which occurred on the 25% day of August, 2019, however as per the Post mortem report and the Death Cerliicates, ail the deceased dled on the 26" day of August, 2019, af 11:40 am, and as such caused substantial miscarriage of justice. THAT the Leamed Trial Jucige ered in law and in fact in convicting the Appellant despite the fact there was no evidence that the Appellant fed them with pesticide and neither wos there any evidence before the court that gastric contents has traces of pesticides.i N INTERFERENCE BY THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE THAT the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in stopping the Counsel for the Accused to cross-examine witnesses and instead directing to submit those issues and in doing so such conduct obstructed the Appellant's Counsel in rendering his professional service to his client, the Appellant. in doing so the Leamed Trial Judge's conduct lead to an unfair tial and caused a substantial miscaniage of justice. THAT the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact by excessively interfering with examination in chief and cross-examining the State witnesses. which led fo the Appellant not hoving a fair trial and hence a substantial miscartiage of Justice BIASED, JHE GROUND: \L_BIAS/PERCEPTION OF BIAS/REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS THE Leamed Trial Judge's conduct in assisting the State in the conduct of the trial and filing the gaps of the Prosecution case showed actual bias and/or reasonable apprehension of bias and/or perception of bias that caused substantial miscarlage of justice. THAT the Learned Trial Judge erred in law ond in fact by excessively interfering with examination in chief and cross-éxamining ihe State witnesses, thereby showing bias against the Appeliont and as such the Appellant did not have a fair rial in accordance of Section 15(1) of the Constitution of Fif.NQ REASON FOR RULING (MISTRIAL) THAT the Leomed Trial Judge ered in law and in foct in not ruling on ‘on application for Mistral despite hearing and participating in the hearing of such application as a result of which the Appellant was denied a fair trial and as such there was a substantial miscerriage of justice, NO REASONS GIVEN TO FIND THERE WAS A CASE TO ANSWER THAT the Leamed Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding that the Appellant had a case to answer and failed to give reasons for ruling that there wos a case to answer and as such there was substantial miscamiage of justice. HEARSAY EVIDENCE THAT the Leamed Trial Judge misdirected himself when he considéred and relied on hearsay evidence by the State Witnesses and as such there was a substantial miscarriage of justice. RES GESTAE EVIDENCE THAT the Leomed Trial Judge erred in aw and in fact in admitting the hearsay evidences of the several State Witnesses under the principles of res gestae without directing his mind fo its exception(s) evidence of which was before the Court.. PRI ONS THAT the Leamed Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in misdirecting himself of the principles of previous inconsistent statement and reliabilty and credibility of such evidence by witnesses 7TANT EVID HY POTHES! ENT NTH INNOCENCE THAT the Leamed Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in not dealing adequately and/or properly and/or svificiently on circumstantial evidence. The Learned Trial Judge also erred in accepting unproved facts which exonerate the Appellant for any offence. THAT the Leamed Trial Judge's findings against the Appellant were contrary to circumstantial evidences and in the circumstances his findings were a travesty of justice. LAST PERSON SEEN WITH THE DECEASED (RULE) THAT the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in not dealing adequately and/or properly and/or sufficiently on “Laws as to last person seen theory” in particulor, {a} every aspects of the circumstances that leaves fo the guilt of the Appellant should be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution; (b} and ail the circumstances should cogently depict the guilt of the accused, In the Appellant's case there were several incongruilies ond suspicions and the guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt and due to the Leamed Trial Judge inadequately directing himseif on the “Laws of Last Person Rule” caused a substantial rriscartiage of justice. WHETHER THE APPELLANT CONSENTED TO DNA SAMPLES THAT the Leomed Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in admitting the DNA report despiie the fact the Prosecutions own witnesses contradicted each other.i i i Aiternatively, the Learned Trial Judge ened in jaw in failing to exercise his discretion judicially, not to admit the said report since the prejudicicl value outweighed the probative value of DNA Analysis Report, DNA REPORT THAT the Leamed Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in not dealing adequately and/or directing himself and/or properly and/or sufficiently the DNA Report whereby the Appellant's DNA was part of samples comprising DNA from two to three unknown and unidentified persons. It would be impossible for the Prosecution to satisfy that the Appellant was the person who caused the death of the deceased persons and as such if raised serious reasonable doubts in the Prosecution Cose and caused a substantial miscaniage of justice, THAT the Leamed Trial Judge ered in law and in fact by not directing himself adequately that the DNA Report Samples were obtained by deception and/or conditionally and as such there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice. CERTIFICATE OF DEATH/POST MORTEM REPORT ON DEATH THAT the Leamed Trial Judge ered in law and in fact in not directing himself the unreliable post mortem report which was based on hearsay and not on the scientific findings of the Doctor who conducted the post mortem and as such there has been a miscarriage of justice.DEFENCE CASE NOT FULLY CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE THAT the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in not directing himself the possible defence on evidences and as such by his failure there was a substantial miscarriage of justice. SERIOUS DOUBTS IN PROSECUTION CASE TWAT the Learned Trial Judge emed in law and in foct in not adequately directing that the Prosecution evidence before the Court did not proved beyond reasonable doubt, that the Appellant was guilty, There were serious doubls in the Prosecution case and as such the benefit of doubt ought io have been given to the Appellant. OFFENCE AND THEIR ELEMENTS THAT the Leamed Trial Judge ered in law ond in fact in not directing himself adequately and/or taking info consideration the defence cose before finding that the prosecution hos established each and every elements of the offence and as such caused a substantial miscarriage of justice. SEPARATE COUNTS CONSIDERATION THAT the Leamed Tiial Judge erred in Jaw and in fact in not directing himself the evidence against each count separately against the Appellant and such failure to do so caused substantial miscamiage of justice. NO DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT the Leamed Tital Judge: erred in law and infact thot after finding that there wos no direct evidence to estabish what had actually happened at Nausori Highlands or establish or point out what ihe Appellant had done at Nausori Highlands fo cause the death of the deceased by poisoning or to establish how and who toi | i ' i | administered the poison and to estoblish the identity of the pesticide found in the bodles of the five individuals ond thereafter contradicted himself by finding that the Prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of five counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, which Caused substantial miscarriage of justice. APPEAL (1) That the Appellant rélies on Grounds 1 to 24 stated hereinabove. (2) THAT the Leamed Tial Judge ered in law and in fact in not taking into relevant consideration the time the Appellant had spent in custody. AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that upon receipt of the Judges Notes it Is the Appetant's intention to amend/add and argue additional grounds of Appeal or file amended grounds of Appeal at least 14 days before the heating of the substantive Appeal patents [%"" day of Felbruony 2022. Ths Notice of Appeal ond Application for Leave to Appeat Against Conviction and Sentence on ‘behalf of the Appotant I fled by. ‘whose address for service fy Gi the Chambers of the said Sofcilors al 7 Yasawe Street. Sunbeam Bulicing. Lautoka and also at the Chambers of ther Cily Agenis MESES EA & COMPANY of Level 4 FNPF Place, Victoria Parade, Suva,IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT SUVA, ELLISLANDS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No, AAU 11 of 2022 IN THE MATTER of Section 21 of the Court of Appeal Act, and IN THE MATTER of an Appeal against the Decision of Honourable Justice Rojasinghe in the High Court of Fij at Lautoka in Criminal case No. HAC16) of 2019, BETWEEN: © MUHAMMED RAHEESH ISOOF APPELLANT AND: ‘THESTAIS RESPONDENT AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL AND APPLICATIONFOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION IQBAL KHAN & ASSOCIATES BARRISTERS & SOLICTORS 7 -YASAWA STREET LAUTOKA SLTY AGENTS: MESSRS FA & COMPANY SOLICITORS LEVEL 4 FNPF PLACE SUYA 2