Ahmed, R, v

In a cut-throat criminal trial, intelligence amounting to bad-character evidence may be admitted under section 101(1)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where it has substantial probative value on an important matter in issue between defendants. The jury must be directed that it is not propensity evidence.

Hearsay admitted as important explanatory background, and multiple hearsay relevant to a co-defendant’s case, may safely be left to the jury with clear directions as to its limitations. A procedural error in cross-examination about unproven allegations, or an isolated error in a summing-up, will not render a conviction unsafe where the evidence was admissible and the jury received an accurate, clear direction when the summing-up is read as a whole.

The applicant was convicted at Sheffield Crown Court of murder and attempted murder arising from a gang-related shooting. He received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 36 years for murder and a concurrent ten-year sentence for attempted murder.

His referred application for leave to appeal challenged the admission of gang intelligence, several hearsay accounts, cross-examination about arrests and allegations not resulting in convictions, directions on hearsay and adverse inferences from silence, and proposed fresh evidence. He also challenged the minimum term as manifestly excessive. The central question was whether any asserted evidential or summing-up error made the convictions unsafe, and whether the minimum term was excessive.

1. The application was rejected. The convictions were safe and the 36-year minimum term was not manifestly excessive.

2. The intelligence concerning the applicant’s membership of the Somali gang was admissible bad-character evidence under section 101(1)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In a cut-throat trial it had substantial probative value on matters in issue between the defendants, including gang membership, connections with other members and access to firearms. It was also supported by served evidence and by matters the applicant accepted. The judge properly directed the jury that it did not demonstrate a propensity to offend.

3. Ali [2008] EWCA Crim 146 did not assist the applicant. Unlike that case, the relevant disclosure material was before the jury as agreed facts, was supported by served evidence, and caused no identified prejudice. The Court therefore had no need to pursue the public-interest-immunity issue further.

4. The hearsay complaint failed. The account given to Thomas Boswell was admissible under section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as important explanatory background. The multiple hearsay was relevant to the co-defendant’s cut-throat case. The jury had been properly directed about its limitations and the need for care.

5. The Crown should have sought leave before cross-examining the applicant about arrests and unproven allegations. The material was nevertheless admissible, and the judge’s clear direction removed any improper use: it did not show that the applicant had committed those allegations, nor any propensity to commit murder or attempted murder.

6. The summing-up had to be read as a whole. The judge’s use of “might” rather than “must” when addressing reasonable reliance on legal advice was unfortunate, but the surrounding directions accurately stated the safeguards governing adverse inferences and the prohibition on conviction wholly or mainly on such an inference. The hearsay directions were also adequate when read with the earlier warnings.

7. The proposed fresh evidence could not materially assist. The Crown case did not require proof of the applicant’s whereabouts at the time of the shooting, and the other proposed witness had been available at trial. The sentencing judge correctly adopted the 30-year starting point under Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and was entitled to increase it for the planning, execution and attempted murder.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — the referred application for leave to appeal against conviction and, if necessary, sentence was rejected: [2018] EWCA Crim 739.
• Sheffield Crown Court — on 25 November 2015, the applicant was convicted of murder and attempted murder, sentenced to life imprisonment with a 36-year minimum term for murder and a concurrent ten-year sentence for attempted murder.