Farhad & Anor, R. v

Whether an accused has given a false impression of character is assessed from the evidence as a whole. A selective account of previous wrongdoing, combined with evidence calculated to portray the accused as unlikely to participate in violence, may justify admitting the full relevant record.

A recorded conversation concerning a firearm is admissible where it bears directly on the issues for the jury, whether it is capable of constituting bad-character evidence or, on the accused’s own account, concerns the weapon used in the charged offence. Dangerousness is assessed at the time of sentence by reference to the statutory risk of serious harm and the offender’s circumstances.

At the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, Forid Farhad, Shibbir Ahmed and another were convicted following a shooting in a public play area. Ahmed fired a sawn-off shotgun towards four men, causing injuries. Farhad and Ahmed were convicted of conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life and offences of wounding or attempting to wound with intent.

Farhad sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. He challenged the admission of his previous convictions and a covert recording of a telephone call, and challenged the finding that he was dangerous and the resulting extended sentence. Ahmed appealed against his 18-year custodial term, alleging manifest excess and disparity with his co-accused.

1. Disposition. The court refused Farhad’s applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. It dismissed Ahmed’s appeal against sentence.
2. Previous convictions. The trial judge was entitled to find that Farhad’s evidence, considered cumulatively, gave the jury a false impression of his character. His partial admissions of wrongdoing, together with his portrayal of himself as physically incapable of assisting in violence, entitled the jury to know the full extent of his previous convictions. The challenge to their admission therefore failed.
3. Telephone recording. The recording of the conversation between Farhad and Abedin was plainly admissible on the issues for the jury. It was capable of showing misconduct and reprehensible behaviour within Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 98, because a jury could infer a shared knowledge of a firearm. On Farhad’s own evidence, the conversation concerned the shotgun used in the shooting, making it evidence of his involvement in the charged offences rather than merely bad-character evidence.
4. Dangerousness and extended sentence. The trial judge applied the correct test and was plainly entitled to find a significant risk of serious harm to the public. The planned possession and discharge of a lethal firearm in a public place, the defendants’ antecedents and their criminal associations supported that conclusion. The judge was especially well placed, having tried the case, to assess dangerousness. An extended sentence under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 226 A was necessary for public protection.
5. Ahmed’s term. Ahmed was a prime mover who armed himself and fired the shotgun. The 18-year custodial term was within the permissible range. Differences in the co-accused’s roles, ages and antecedents justified the differing terms, so no impermissible disparity arose.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2019] EWCA Crim 1129, Farhad’s applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused, and Ahmed’s appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 31 May 2018, Farhad and Ahmed were convicted of the firearm conspiracy and wounding offences. Farhad received an extended sentence comprising 12 years’ custody and a three-year extension period; Ahmed received 18 years’ custody and a three-year extension period.