Abdullah & Ors, R v

A co-accused’s conviction or guilty plea may be admitted under section 74 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but the discretion should be exercised sparingly, particularly in a conspiracy trial. The court must assess whether the evidence would have a disproportionate and unfair effect. Material safeguards include whether the plea necessarily implicates the defendant, whether there is independent evidence that the offence occurred, whether the defendant’s own involvement remains a distinct issue, and whether the circumstances of the plea can be explored before the jury.

An appellate court will interfere with the evidential ruling only if it was made on a false basis or no reasonable judge could have made it.

At Sheffield Crown Court, Khan pleaded guilty to conspiracy to kidnap, intimidation and possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life. Saad and Abdullah were later convicted of the conspiracy after a trial. The prosecution had been permitted to adduce Khan’s guilty plea and conviction in their trial.

Saad and Abdullah appealed against conviction, contending that admission of Khan’s plea made the trial unfair. Khan appealed against his indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection. Abdullah also sought to renew an application for leave to appeal against his six-year sentence.

The central issue on the conviction appeals was whether the trial judge’s admission of Khan’s conviction under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was an unfair exercise of discretion.

1. The appeals against conviction were dismissed. Khan’s appeal against sentence succeeded to the limited extent that his minimum term was reduced from eight years to seven years. Abdullah’s application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

2. The court applied the appellate standard stated in Smith [2007] EWCA Crim 2105. A ruling admitting evidence will be reversed only if it was made on a false basis or was one which no reasonable judge could have made.

3. The discretion to admit a co-accused’s conviction under section 74 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be exercised sparingly, especially in conspiracy cases. Such evidence may carry substantial but untested weight. Its admission was nevertheless fair here. Khan’s plea did not necessarily implicate either appellant because the indictment alleged conspiracy with persons unknown. There was also independent evidence from Moss that Morris had been kidnapped.

4. The jury still had to decide independently whether Saad and Abdullah participated in the conspiracy. Their verdicts concerning other co-defendants showed that they had not treated Khan’s guilt as determining the guilt of others. The circumstances in which Khan entered his plea, including the original charges and matters concerning his girlfriend, were available for the defence to deploy. The trial judge’s balancing exercise under section 78 was therefore reasonable and proper.

5. Khan was the prime mover in a sustained and violent kidnapping, had fired at Rennie’s car, and had intimidated Morris. The finding of dangerousness justifying an IPP sentence was sound. However, an eight-year minimum term implied an excessively high determinate starting point, even allowing for consecutive sentences. The minimum term was substituted with seven years, operating on the same basis as the original term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Saad’s and Abdullah’s conviction appeals were dismissed. Khan’s minimum term was reduced from eight to seven years; the IPP sentence otherwise remained. Abdullah’s renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

• Sheffield Crown Court: On 6 November 2009 Khan pleaded guilty to conspiracy to kidnap, intimidation and possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life. On 11 February 2010 Saad and Abdullah were convicted of conspiracy to kidnap. On 12 February 2010 Khan received an IPP sentence with an eight-year minimum term, Saad received seven years’ imprisonment and Abdullah received six years’ imprisonment.