But his case isn’t over yet; he now faces a re-trial.
The three-judge Court of Appeal in London accepted the arguments brought by Dizaei, 48, who is one year into a four-year jail sentence. The main argument against the conviction was that the main witness against Dizaei had lied repeatedly before the trial—lied about his age, his nationality (which turns out to be Iranian, not Iraqi), when his father died, and even his name.
The court did not say that Dizaei was proved innocent. It said that the new evidence raised questions about the veracity of what the witness told the trial court. It said if the jury had known about the witness’s prior untruthfulness, it might not have accepted his testimony. That, the Appeal Court said, warranted a new trial.
Appeals courts in the Anglo-Saxon judicial system do not rule on facts. That is left to the jury in the trial courts. An appeals court rules on whether legal procedures were properly adhered to. In essence, the court of appeal in this case said Dizaei did not have a fair trial because the jury didn’t know all it should have known about the keywitness.
Dizaei, one of the senior officers in the British police system with the rank of commander, was convicted a year ago of misconduct in public office and doing acts with intent to pervert the course of justice. He was not present in court to hear that he will now get a new trial.
Lord Justice Hughes, sitting with Mr. Justice Treacy and Mr. Justice Cranston, said the court had been “driven to the conclusion’’ that his conviction “cannot be regarded as safe.” In the British system, a conviction is “safe” if it is grounded on a solid foundation.
The ruling follows a hearing in March during which allegations were made about the credibility of Waad al-Baghdadi, the key witness in the case against Dizaei. A jury found Dizaei guilty of attempting to frame Baghdadi when they fell out over money. Jurors were told the Iranian-born Dizaei threatened, assaulted, falsely arrested and faked evidence against Baghdadi, who designed a website for Dizaei and was demanding the agreed payment.
But Michael Mansfield, attorney for Dizaei, presented evidence that Baghdadi had lied constantly in the years before the trial about other matters and wasn’t even Baghdadi.
Dizaei said his 15 months in prison had been “hell’’ and “like putting a hand in a wasps’ nest.’’ He added: “I was assaulted on a number of occasions.” He will now be set free pending the outcome of the new trial.
Some at Scotland Yard, as the London police force is known for the location of its headquarters, dislike Dizaei immensely for his long criticism of its treatment of “black” officers. In Britain, Dizaei is considered to be “black,” as the term is applied to non-Europeans. He was an officer of the National Black Police Association.
The senior ranks in Scotland Yard were said to have greeted his conviction last year by popping champagne corks. His career and reputation looked dead and buried after the conviction triggered his sacking.
But after his conviction, his wife, Shy, investigated al-Baghdadi’s background and found he was using the name of his dead father to steal thousands of pounds from the British welfare system.
Dizaei said the fact that his wife, who had no training in investigative techniques, could uncover this showed how poor the investigation by the Police Complaints Commission had been.
During the appeal hearing it also emerged al-Baghdadi told the jury he was born and lived in Iraq, when he was born in Iran. Al-Baghdadi had also used a false date of birth and had not testified under his real name.
The Court of Appeal found he had “maintained those false details … on oath before the jury” and was helped to enter the UK by a false document.
The appeal court heard al-Baghdadi told the pension and benefits departments his father was alive so that he could collect his father’s £100-a-week pension, plus an allowance for caring for him. Thousands of pounds in benefits went into bank accounts controlled by al-Baghdadi. He was still claiming benefits up until February this year.
In the judgment, Lord Justice Hughes said it was the material the court heard about al-Baghdadi’s alleged welfare fraud that convinced the three judges the conviction was “unsafe” or poorly grounded. Hughes wrote: “It is obvious that the fresh information about benefit claims would have had some impact on the jury’s deliberations.”
The appeals court said it would be for the jury to decide at a retrial if al-Baghdadi was telling the truth about his clash with Dizaei. There was other evidence involved—including video from a security camera—in addition to al-Baghdadi’s testimony.