Legal News
The conviction of former Scotland Yard boss upheld by the Court of Appeal (15 February 2013)
Date: 15/02/2013
Ali Dizaei the 50 year old former Scotland Yard commander who went for an appeal to get his three year prison sentence for corruption overturned had his appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
He was convicted of framing an innocent man, Waad al-Baghdadi, for assault in a row over money, which was upheld unanimously by the three judges Court of Appeal.
Dizaei had claimed that he was the victim of a sophisticated witch-hunt.
He was repeatedly exposed since 2001 for his appalling behaviour, endless threats of legal action against the Mail which was behind the expose, he even threatened of strikes by fellow race militants.
At one stage, Dizaei was considered more powerful than the Metropolitan Police Commissioner - such was the stranglehold he held over his supposed superiors.
The overconfident officer played the race card to the hilt to intimidate his critics and had been tried and convicted twice over the charges.
He was first found guilty in February 2010 for claiming Mr al Baghdadi had threatened him and assaulted him outside a west London restaurant in July 2008 which was found to be a lie.
After his victims failed to testify his immigration status he was released from the prison where he was serving a four year sentence on the orders of the Court of Appeal.
In a retrial at Southwark Crown Court last year the officer was once again found guilty of misconduct and perverting the course of justice.
He was then jailed for three years, but released on an electronic tag two weeks later because he had spent 15 months in prison as a result of his first conviction.
In the latest appeal, Dizaei’s lawyer argued that the conviction was ‘unsafe’.
He said that the judge at the second trial had made an ‘error of law’ when he refused to admit certain ‘bad character’ evidence relating to Mr al-Baghdadi.
The criminal solicitor argued that because of the judge’s decision to reject the application the jury did not have all the material that it should have done.
He told the court that their submission was simple that the decision was wrong.
Opposing the appeal, Peter Wright, QC, for the Crown, told the court that the decision was not wrong and the judge had not committed any error.
Mr Wright said that in the context of the fairness of this trial, that this trial remained entirely fair and that the conviction was not unsafe.
Dismissing the appeal, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, sitting with Mr Justice Wyn Williams and Mr Justice Globe, ruled that the conviction was ‘safe.