THE boss of a former top Jersey steak and sushi restaurant is seeking to challenge his conviction for rape, sexual penetration without consent, grave and criminal assault and voyeurism.
Gavin Neil Roberts (46) – the founder of St Aubin-based Shinzo, which closed in 2022 carrying debts of more than £130,000 – was convicted in February 2024 and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment in March this year.
As part of his application for leave to appeal, launched in Jersey’s Court of Appeal yesterday, Roberts claimed police failed to obtain key CCTV, did not interview potential witnesses in Turkey, and made several criticisms of his trial lawyer.
Roberts – who represented himself in court, with Advocate Olaf Blakeley supporting as amicus curiae – had missed the deadline to apply for an appeal, so also had to ask for permission from the Court of Appeal for the deadline to be extended.
Advocate Blakeley explained that Roberts’ trial advocate had not properly informed him that he had 28 days to file an appeal.
The court heard about a number of letters from the trial lawyer, Advocate David Steenson, to Roberts. Though they did mention an appeal, they did not inform Roberts of the deadline, Advocate Blakeley said.
Advocate Emma Hollywood, appearing on behalf of the Attorney General, said Advocate Steenson had informed Roberts of the deadline before he was found guilty, and that Advocate Steenson had written an affidavit that confirmed this.
But Advocate Blakeley said: “In this instance we have a person who has gone through a trial, he is convicted and is being advised on the hoof, orally, by his advocate. It is entirely possible that he was advised [of the deadline] but he just didn’t take it on board.”
Outlining Roberts’ argument that he should be granted permission to appeal his conviction, Advocate Blakeley said that there were insufficient investigations by the police, that there were missing witnesses at trial who could have confirmed his version of the story, that some evidence shouldn’t have been shown.
He also said that there were “overarching criticisms” of his trial lawyer, Advocate David Steenson.
Among the evidence he claimed that police missed was CCTV from the clothing shop Redvers. One of the alleged assaults took place in the shop’s doorway. Police used CCTV from Bath Street, where the shop is located.
He added that there were no interviews of potential witnesses of the alleged rape, which was reported to have happened at a hotel in Turkey.
“There is a drip, drip, drip effect which undermines the safety of the conviction,” Advocate Blakeley said.
Advocate Emma Hollywood said that officer-in-charge DC Carla Garnier had been extensively cross-examined during the trial about the lack of evidence from Turkey.
The jury would have been aware of the criticism of the investigation, she said.
The police had to follow “all reasonable lines of enquiry”, she said.
“This does not mean an endless investigation.”
She added that DC Garnier had told the jury she had tried to contact authorities in Turkey, but that they had not been “forthcoming”.
Roberts also wanted to challenge the sentencing process.
The prosecution had suggested more rigid sentencing guidelines, which the Royal Court ultimately rejected, but added more criteria to take into account during sentencing. These included emotional and psychological harm, humiliation and degradation.
Advocate Blakeley said these were “woolly” and that it was hard for a first applicant to challenge this “new regime”.
The Court of Appeal reserved their judgment, saying they would publish their decisions before the end of August.
Deputy Bailiff Robert MacRae was presiding with Appeal Judges Jonathan Crow, David Perry, Helen Mountfield, and the Rt Hon James Wolffe.
