Tamiz (Aka Miah) & Ors v R

Under PACE section 78, fairness in admitting voice-comparison evidence depends on the circumstances. Failures to keep contemporaneous records do not automatically require exclusion. They may affect weight where recordings are good, interpreters compare speakers rather than identify suspects, sufficient comparative material exists, and there is supporting evidence.

An acquittal is not evidence of misconduct unless it is suggested to be mistaken. It may nevertheless be admitted, without treating it as bad-character evidence, where it is relevant to the defendant’s state of mind and the jury is clearly directed that the prosecution cannot go behind the acquittal.

Eight defendants were tried at Winchester Crown Court for conspiracies involving the importation of diamorphine or cannabis and the supply of heroin. The present proceedings concerned conviction and sentence appeals, and renewed applications for leave to appeal, brought by five defendants.

Juned Miah and Kamal Hussain challenged the admission of interpreters’ evidence comparing voices on covert recordings. Mohammed Younas challenged the admission of his previous acquittal as relevant to his asserted lack of knowledge. Shannon Tamiz challenged conviction and sentence, including the admission of evidence concerning another person’s drug-dealing conviction. Abdellah Dohfi appealed his sentence. The central issue was whether the trial judge had made any unfair or erroneous evidential ruling, or imposed excessive sentences.

The appeals were dismissed and the renewed applications for leave to appeal were refused.

1. The interpreters’ evidence was properly admitted. The issue under section 78 of PACE was whether admission would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings. The concerns identified in Flynn and St John [2008] EWCA Criminal 970 did not require exclusion on these facts. The recordings were of good quality. The interpreters compared whether passages were spoken by the same person; they did not identify either appellant as the speaker. They had extensive material for comparison, some other attributions had been verified, and other evidence supported the prosecution’s attribution of X and Y.

2. Although contemporaneous records of the interpreters’ process would have been preferable, their absence went to evidential weight rather than admissibility. The evidence could have been challenged by replaying specific passages, by defence evidence, or by independent interpreters. The prosecution had no other means of proving the relevant comparisons. The jury was appropriately warned of the need for caution. Accordingly, there was no unfairness and Miah’s and Hussain’s conviction appeals failed.

3. Younas’s previous acquittal was not bad-character evidence. Under sections 98 and 112 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, an acquittal is not evidence of misconduct unless its correctness is challenged. The acquittal was admissible solely as relevant background to whether Younas could genuinely have been unaware that drugs were involved. The prosecution did not go behind it, and the jury was expressly directed not to infer guilt from it. There was no arguable error.

4. The conviction evidence concerning Kamal Uddin’s heroin-dealing convictions was relevant and probative of whether entries in Tamiz’s diary recorded drug dealing rather than innocent building work. Tamiz’s conviction challenge therefore disclosed no arguable ground. The sentences challenged were supported by the trial evidence, reflected the appellants’ roles and relevant mitigation, and were within the appropriate range.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the listed appeals and refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal: [2010] EWCA Crim 2638.
• Winchester Crown Court — following a jury trial before HH Judge Hooton, convicted the defendants of drug-importation and supply conspiracies and imposed custodial sentences.