Dika & Anor v R.

Where police identification evidence has been obtained despite breaches of the applicable Codes of Practice, its exclusion depends on whether the defects make a fair defence impossible. A trial judge may admit the evidence where the breaches can be properly tested by cross-examination and other evidence supports the identification.

On an application to challenge sentence, the appellate court assesses whether the overall sentence was justified. It does not treat the precise structure of concurrent and consecutive terms as determinative. Severe, deterrent sentences may be justified for senior participation in large-scale, sophisticated drug supply and money-laundering conspiracies.

Behar Dika was convicted at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court of conspiracies to possess cocaine with intent to supply and to facilitate the acquisition, use or retention of criminal property. He received concurrent terms of 18 and nine years’ imprisonment.

Jaspreet Singh Gill had pleaded guilty to corresponding money-laundering and drug offences, and to possessing a prohibited weapon. He received a total of nine years’ imprisonment.

Both applicants renewed applications for leave after refusal by a single judge. Dika challenged his convictions and sentence, principally alleging that police identification evidence should have been excluded because of breaches of the Codes of Practice. Gill challenged his sentence. The central issues were whether Dika’s trial was unfair or his convictions unsafe, and whether either sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed applications for leave to appeal were refused. The court endorsed the single judge’s reasons in full.

2. The trial judge was reasonably entitled to admit the police identification evidence. Although there had been substantial breaches of the Codes of Practice, the proper question was whether the defects prevented Dika from fairly defending himself against the observations. They did not. Defence counsel could cross-examine the officers on the deficiencies, and the identification was materially supported by evidence that Dika later insured the relevant Mercedes as its sole driver.

3. The evidence concerning a forged café invoice was also properly admitted. It was capable of bearing on the prosecution case that the café was made to appear legitimate and was used to launder money. It fell within section 98, as the single judge had concluded.

4. There was sufficient evidence for the jury, no basis for a submission of no case to answer, and no conceivable basis for staying the prosecution as an abuse of process. The alleged disclosure failures, police malpractice, prejudicial comments and temporary confusion with another person did not affect the safety of the verdicts. The judge conducted the difficult trial fairly, summed up clearly, and gave no erroneous direction of law.

5. The 18-year sentence imposed on Dika was justified by his senior, hands-on role in a vast and sophisticated drug and money-laundering operation. Gill’s total sentence of nine years was likewise justified. The consecutive four-year term for the separate Long Lane drug sub-conspiracy was proper. What mattered was the justification for Gill’s overall sentence, rather than the precise sentencing structure.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2011] EWCA Crim 2459, the court refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal. Dika’s proposed appeals against conviction and sentence, and Gill’s proposed appeal against sentence, therefore failed.
• Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames: Dika was convicted on 21 June 2010 and sentenced on 8 July 2010. Gill pleaded guilty on 20 November 2009 and was sentenced on 8 July 2010.
• Single judge: Refused leave to appeal, after which each applicant renewed the relevant application to the full court.