Amir Mizrachy (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Bermuda)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0104

Jurisdiction

Bermuda

Parties

Appellant(s)

Amir Mizrachy

Respondent(s)

Department of Public Prosecutions

Issue

Are the appellant’s convictions for (i) wilful damage and (ii) careless driving and driving without reasonable consideration for other road users unsafe?

Facts

This appeal involves two cases in which Mr Mizrachy (“the appellant”) is defendant, the first involving three criminal offences in relation to an incident in a car park and the second involving a traffic offence under the Road Traffic Act 1947 (the “RTA 1947”). The traffic offence: A witness, Mr Moniz, gave evidence that on 20 February 2020, the complainant Ms Saggar whilst driving overtook the appellant’s car. The appellant then pulled out and tried to get in front of Ms Saggar’s car. This resulted in the appellant’s car ending up perpendicular to the flow of traffic. Ms Saggar and Mr Moniz questioned the appellant, who made no response and drove off having damaged Ms Saggar’s vehicle. The appellant was charged with careless driving and driving without reasonable consideration for other road users, contrary to section 37 of the RTA 1947 (the “traffic offence”). He was tried and on 11 March 2021 convicted in the Magistrates’ Court. The criminal offences: The complainant Ms Armstrong gave evidence that on 19 March 2019 she drove her car to a church car park and found a car in her spot. She parked and started walking to work when the driver of the car in her spot, the appellant, came and asked if that was her car blocking his. The appellant, using abusive language asked her to move her car. A witness, Dr Robinson, gave evidence that she saw the appellant drag an item along the side of Ms Armstrong’s vehicle. A few minutes later this happened again and was seen by Dr Robinson and Mr King, who reported what he had seen to the police, namely PC Clyke. PC Clyke observed that the car had scratch marks on both sides of the vehicle and rear of the car. The appellant was charged with three offences: using offensive words in a public place under section 11(e) of the Summary Offences Act 1926 (“count 1”); an offence under section 200A (racial harassment) of the Criminal Code Act 1907 (“count 2”); and wilful damage contrary to section 448(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1907 (“count 3”). On 26 February 2021 he was found guilty and convicted on all three charges. Appellate proceedings The appellant appealed his convictions in the Magistrates’ Court for the traffic offence and the criminal offences to the Bermuda Supreme Court. On 6 December 2023, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant’s appeal on count 1 (on grounds that the church car park was not a public place nor was there evidence that the offensive words could be heard in continguous public places) and count 2 (it was a “he said/she said” situation so the judge could not be satisfied that the offence occurred). In a further decision of the same date, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on the traffic offence. The appellant then appealed the decisions to uphold his conviction on the traffic offence and on count 3 to the Bermuda Court of Appeal. The Crown cross-appealed, seeking to reinstate the appellant’s convictions on the counts 1 and 2. The appeal and cross appeal were dismissed. The appellant remains convicted on the traffic offence and on count 1. He appeals the decisions to uphold these convictions to the Privy Council.