KAT 499/2013
This case involved one appeal which was rejected because reasons for the appeal had not been made within the necessary deadline. In the other appeal of a robbery conviction, the court had been wrong to ignore continual claims the arrest procedures were invalid.
Background
First Appeal:
An appellant appealed the ruling before the court.
The court of cassation considered issues related to the public order. The court said that the documents of the case revealed that the appellant introduced the appeal document within the legal deadline but they failed to provide the reasons for their appeal within this deadline.
Second Appeal:
An appellant said in his grounds of appeal that the appealed ruling by which he was convicted of robbery had insufficient evidence of causation and had violated the right of defence. He said that he maintained before the court that the arrest proceedings were invalid but the court dismissed this defence and established its ruling on the grounds of evidence extracted from invalid proceedings.
Decision
First Appeal:
The court dismissed the appeal.
Second Appeal: