11 hours ago
Ali Dastmozd tries to quash conviction at Court of Appeals
Don't miss out on the headlines from Leader . Followed categories will be added to My News.
A jealous jailbird who violently stabbed his ex-wife's boyfriend has made a hail Mary attempt to quash his conviction, arguing evidence of his admission to police should have been thrown out.
Two years after a jury found Ali Dastmozd guilty of aggravated burglary and intentionally causing serious injury — locking him up for a decade (seven years non-parole) — he has launched a bold bid for freedom.
Dastmozd stabbed his ex-wife's new boyfriend Sahar Seyedi at a Mulgrave house in October 2020, storming into the home and slicing the victim's jugular vein during the wild attack.
When police arrived and apprehended Dastmozd, court documents revealed he admitted the crime.
When asked 'did you stab the other guy?' by an officer Dastmodz replied 'yeah'.
'Don't worry man, the fight is finished,' Dasmodz told police, lying face down on the road.
But in an audacious bid for release Dastmozd argued at the Court of Appeals that this admission — captured on a body camera — was prejudicial and should not have been shown to the jury as it was made before he was officially arrested.
He claimed his conversation was in the 'company of police questioning' rather than while under arrest.
According to court documents Dastmozd was told he was under arrest about 'one minute and 10 seconds after the admission'.
He argued allowing this evidence to be admitted deprived him a 'realistic chance of acquittal, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice.'
During the trial there were no objections to this footage being shown to the jury.
But Appeals judges Kristen Walker, Lesley Taylor and Robert Osborn found he was under arrest at the time, citing the Evidence Act which references a person being under arrest as someone who 'has been given reasonable grounds for believing that they would not be allowed to leave'.
'This was a volatile situation, where a stabbing had occurred, the weapon had not been recovered, members of the public could be at risk and the precise number of offenders was unknown,' the judges found.
'In light of (police) commands to (Dastmozd) to get on the ground, put his hands behind his back, and stay there, it is plain that paragraph (c) of (Evidence Act) was satisfied.'
Dastmozd's appeal was dismissed.
