By FARRAH JOHNSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
fjohnson@tribunemedia.net
THE Court of Appeal yesterday confirmed the nine month sentence of a man who last year defrauded his ex-girlfriend of over $1,000 before hacking her social media accounts to expose nude photos of her online.
In May 2020, Malik Wright appeared before Magistrate Samuel McKinney charged with fraud by false pretences, causing damage and unauthorised access to computer material. According to a judgement posted on the Crown’s website, on May 9, 2020, Wright smashed his ex-girlfriend’s phone during an argument.
About two days later, the woman was informed that nude photos of her were circulating on social media. When she checked her Scotiabank account, she also discovered Wright had made several unauthorised purchases using funds from her account. After she reported the incident to police, they launched an investigation into the matter. It was later revealed that the data from the woman’s cellphone, inclusive of her photos and banking information, had been downloaded to and shared from Wright’s laptop.
At the time, he pleaded guilty to the offences and was sentenced to nine months in prison and ordered to compensate his ex-girlfriend for her damaged and stolen property.
A few weeks after the sentence was passed, Wright filed a notice of appeal arguing that the magistrate erred in law when he allowed the prosecution to proceed with the matter despite the fact that they did not provide a charge sheet or police interview statements to his counsel.
In September 2020, he also filed a supplemental notice of appeal on the grounds the magistrate also erred in fact and law when he failed to consider his interview statement which indicated that he was initially questioned about stealing and never questioned in regards to fraud.
Most recently, Wright applied for an extension of time within which to appeal his convictions and sentences.
However yesterday, Justices Jon Isaacs, Roy Jones and Carolita Bethell denied his application and affirmed his sentence and conviction after ruling the prospects of him successfully appealing his conviction was “nil”.
In their judgement, delivered by Justice Isaacs, the panel noted Wright was out of time by over three months and there was no explanation given to justify the period of delay.
“Regarding his prospects of success, pursuant to Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an intended appellant who pleaded guilty is barred from appealing their conviction, unless it can be demonstrated that their guilty plea was equivocal,” they noted.
“As that is not the case in this intended appeal, the intended appellant’s prospects of successfully appealing his convictions are nil. Relative to the intended appellant’s prospects of success on appealing his sentences, save for the sentence imposed relative to the offence of unauthorised access to a computer, the prospects of success are also nil.
“Despite its glimmer of success on count three, I am satisfied that this EoT (extension of time) application ought to be denied pursuant to the proviso to Section 13(2) of the Court of Appeal Act. The EoT application is refused. The intended appellant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.”
Commenting has been disabled for this item.