Sebastian Ayangma fails to get his father as agent in court appeal

Published on December 28, 2015

Noel Ayangma

©Submitted photo

Remains in jail until his appeal begins in February on a conviction of trafficking in cocaine

The P.E.I. Court of Appeal has denied an application by convicted drug trafficker, Sebastien Didier Ayangma, to have his father, Noel Ayangma, appointed as his agent to represent him at his forthcoming appeal hearing.

Sebastian Ayangma is appealing a Supreme Court decision in which he was convicted of four counts of trafficking in cocaine and sentenced to imprisonment for 30 months.

The hearing on that appeal is slated to begin Feb. 10.

Ayangma’s grounds of appeal are mainly based on alleged Crown failure to disclose certain information thereby preventing him from making out his defence of entrapment.

He fired his lawyer after he failed to get out of jail until this appeal was heard.

Ayangma said he did not wish to apply for legal aid or legal assistance for the appeal, but wished to have his father, who is not a lawyer, represent him at his appeal.

But the high court ruled that was not possible in this case for a number of reasons.

One of the primary reasons was the fact the appeal involves complex legal issues requiring a nuanced appreciation of the legal implications and limitations — Crown disclosure and the defence of entrapment.

RELATED: Noel Ayangma's failed legal attempts cost him over $30,000

“Quite clearly, the appellant would be best served by being represented by a lawyer,” the decision stated.

“On this application, the appellant has indicated that he does not wish to obtain the services of a lawyer in any event. On considering the full record on the application, it is our view that the appellant has not demonstrated to us that his proposed agent could effectively or adequately act on his behalf in this appeal.”

The decision also addressed the issue of whether the appointment of a non-lawyer to represent an accused on an appeal of a conviction for an indictable offence was barred under the rules of civil procedure.

It was their belief that that was indeed the case here.

Chief Justice David Jenkins said if Ayangma now wishes to retain legal counsel the court would look favourably on a timely request from him for an extension of time to enable preparation of the appeal.