Email

Print

Attorney Simeon Sampson presented the court with one main ground on behalf of his client Patrick Robateau. After the session 7News discussed it with him outside of court, and here's how he explained it:

Simeon Sampson - Attorney for Patrick Robateau
"Robateau was intercepted in Mexico, apparently in flight and he was taken by the Mexican authorities to our Belize Embassy in Mexico City where he was met by Mr. Figueroa, our Ambassador at the time, and the case for the prosecution - not the trial - was that when the Ambassador was apparently investigating this matter, it was back and forth with the Belize authorities and so forth. Then it was discovered that Robateau was wanted by the police, likewise his accomplice and Robateau ought not to have been admitted into evidence, it would come out as a confession to an officer - well we are arguing that the Ambassador of Belize is representing Belize and that the powers of investigating cases is still vesting in him; but the Ambassador had called Crispin Jefferies who was the commissioner of Police at that time of the case. We are saying that the Ambassador was acting in a capacity of an investigator and that we're asking the judge to uphold that to. But if they knock out that statement, Robateau could go free."

Reporter
"According to your argument, you mentioned the procedure of protection. Is part of your argument is that Mr. Figueroa did not read him his rights?"

Simeon Sampson
"The government is saying that the Ambassador is not clothed with those powers, we are saying yes - the interest of the rights of the subject, these perceptual, these procedures are there for us, is arguable. So that conviction can be quashed."

Reporter
"What happened in Mexico a significant of what got him convicted?"

Simeon Sampson
"Yes."

And while Sampson focused on rule 15 of the Judges Rules as set down by Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh, Pipersburg's attorney, Bryan Neal, focused on jury misdirection by the trial judge as his client's main complaint.

He explained that Pipersburg agreed to rob the place, but didn't intend to kill anyone. He also added that there was no evidence to support that in the case:

Bryan Neal - Attorney for Leslie Pipersburgh
"There was never any evidence that Mr. Pipersburgh had killed anyone or shot anyone and therefore the only way he could be liable in law is as a secondary participant but we are challenging the direction of the judge saying that, the direction he gave could have implicated Mr. Pipersburgh eve though he didn't have the guilty mind of killing anyone. Mr. Pipersburgh in his unsworn statement had said that he had agreed to rob Bowen & Bowen but he never agreed to kill anyone but the direction murked the water so that he could be convicted even though he didn't have the guilty mind, and that is what we're challenging."

Reporter
"So now this case has there been any point where your client, Mr. Pipersburgh has been identified as one of the shooters or the shooter in this case?"

Bryan Neal
"Never, he was never identified as a shooter. In fact he said in his statement that he left the compound so whatever happened in terms of the shooting happened after he left and indeed none of the witnesses that pointed him out and none of them identified him from the duck, other than the person who was robbed. He was never identified shooting anyone."

Daniel Ortiz
"So at least he is guilty by the evidence presented of robbery?"

Bryan Neal
"Yes he has said that and he has been quite honest with the court and he has accepted that. But it is one thing to agree to robbery of a place and it's another thing to go and kill people. If you and I agree to rob and you go ahead without my knowledge and kill someone - I should not be liable in law for what you did and that is what we are urging upon the courts."

Reporter
"If the judge upholds your single round of appeal - what would be the result of your client theoretically?"

Bryan Neal
"Well we are hoping that the conviction is quashed and is given the period of time since the incident occurred and now - it wouldn't be practical to rehear this case. It has been heard, it has gone to the privy council - they would be no point in rehearing the matter so we're asking that the sentence be quashed and that my client is set free."

Daniel Ortiz
"Would he have to serve time for the robbery?"

Bryan Neal
"He was never convicted of a robbery. What he is convicted of and what we are appealing against is two counts of murder - one in respect to Kevin Alvarez and Fidelo Mai, there was no conviction, it was never tried for robbery. Given the time he has served in prison I think he has paid his debt to society for the robbery that he has admitted to."

Director of Public Prosecutions, Cheryl-Lynn Vidal responded to both grounds presented, and after she made her case, the Court of Appeal made its decision. They dismissed both appeals, and affirmed the convictions against both men. The court will provide its written reasons at a later day.

So tonight, both men are back behind bars serving out their life sentences – their appeals denied.