Miah, R. v

Evidence of an alleged victim’s demeanour after an incident will usually be too tenuously relevant to assist a jury and should ordinarily not be admitted. It may be admitted where there is a concrete basis connecting the reaction to a live issue, so that the evidence is genuinely relevant and helpful rather than general credibility evidence. A conviction is not unsafe if any error concerning such evidence could not have affected its safety. In sentencing for kidnapping and blackmail, the court must assess criminality and harm. The absence of physical violence may materially reduce the proper sentence despite serious psychological harm, a vulnerable victim, planning and a leading role.

At the Crown Court at Sheffield, Miah and Mohammed were convicted of kidnapping after the removal and overnight detention of a 14-year-old boy. Miah had previously pleaded guilty to blackmail, and Mohammed was also convicted of blackmail. The prosecution case was that this was a genuine kidnapping to obtain ransom money. The defence contended that the boy had participated in a staged kidnapping.

During the trial, the boy’s mother gave evidence that his behaviour had changed markedly for seven months after the event. The appellants challenged the judge’s direction permitting the jury to use that evidence. They also appealed their sentences. The central issue was whether the post-event evidence of the alleged victim’s reaction was admissible and, if so, whether the sentences were excessive.

1. The court dismissed the appeals against conviction. It held that evidence of an alleged victim’s later reaction will ordinarily provide little material assistance to a jury. Such evidence can arise from many causes, may invite collateral inquiry, and should in the overwhelming majority of cases not be admitted merely as evidence consistent with the complainant’s account.

2. Applying R v Keast [1998] Crim LR 748, the court held that admissibility depended on whether there was a concrete basis making the evidence relevant and helpful. That basis existed here. The defence alleged that the 14-year-old had recruited the appellants and devised a false kidnapping. If the mother’s evidence were accepted, he would have had to maintain a false reaction for a considerable period. The evidence could therefore assist the jury on the live issue of whether the kidnapping had been invented.

3. The court stressed the exceptional nature of that conclusion. The ruling did not permit general post-event demeanour evidence to be used as a means of supporting a complainant’s credibility.

4. In any event, the convictions were safe. The prosecution case was strong, and the evidence of a co-defendant showed a major part of the appellants’ case to be untrue. Any error in the direction could not have affected the safety of the convictions.

5. The court allowed the sentence appeals in part. Following the approach in R v Yu Hang and Others [2011] EWCA Crim 2089, it assessed criminality and harm. It recognised Miah’s leading role, the planning, the victim’s vulnerability, the serious mental impact, and Miah’s antecedents. However, no physical violence had been inflicted. That materially distinguished the case from the more severe kidnapping authorities.

6. Miah’s sentence for kidnapping was reduced from 15 to 12 years’ imprisonment and his concurrent blackmail sentence from 11 to nine years. His consecutive two-year sentence for public nuisance remained, producing a total of 14 years’ imprisonment. Mohammed’s sentences for kidnapping and blackmail were each reduced to eight years’ detention, producing a total of eight years’ detention in a young offender institution.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court dismissed both appeals against conviction. It allowed the appeals against sentence only, substituting reduced sentences for kidnapping and blackmail.

• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 20 June 2012, Miah and Mohammed were convicted of kidnapping before Judge Lawler QC and a jury. Mohammed was also convicted of blackmail; Miah had earlier pleaded guilty to that offence.