Abdullah & Anor v R.

Once previous bad-character evidence has been properly admitted, it may support any inference or conclusion properly drawn from it. The jury must nevertheless receive a fair direction explaining its limited role and guarding against conviction merely because of bad character.

An identification direction is adequate where it gives appropriate care and caution, addresses the opportunity for observation and identified weaknesses, and places a dock identification in its proper limited context. A sentence based on a properly reasoned assessment of dangerousness and the offender’s role will not be disturbed merely because it is severe.

The appellants were convicted following a sustained attack on two men who had attended a flat to buy a cheap telephone. The offences included false imprisonment, robbery, wounding with intent and threats to kill. One victim suffered grave and lasting injuries.

At the first trial, Abdullah was convicted of robbery and Pululu was convicted of all counts against him. After a retrial on the outstanding allegations, Abdullah was convicted of false imprisonment, wounding with intent and threats to kill. The Inner London Crown Court imposed extended sentences after finding both men dangerous.

Abdullah appealed his conviction on the bad-character direction and sought renewed permission on the admission of his robbery conviction and the identification direction. Both men sought permission to appeal their sentences. The central issues were whether the convictions were rendered unsafe by the jury directions or admission of prior convictions, and whether the sentences were excessive.

1. The court dismissed Abdullah’s conviction appeal on the ground for which leave had been granted. It refused renewed permission to appeal on his remaining conviction grounds, and refused permission to appeal the sentences of both Abdullah and Pululu.

2. Once properly admitted, prior bad-character evidence may be used to support any inference or conclusion properly drawn from it. Applying Highton [2005] 1 WLR 3472, the court held that a broad bad-character direction was appropriate. Abdullah’s defence was that he had taken no part in any offending, rather than that he had committed robbery but not the other offences. A direction artificially confining the robbery conviction to one purpose, or elaborating on forms of participation not raised by the defence, would have confused the jury. Although the direction could have been more precise, it adequately prevented the jury from treating bad character as proof of guilt and did not render the convictions unsafe.

3. The court also upheld the admission of Abdullah’s earlier robbery conviction. The trial judge had considered section 74 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant authorities. In the circumstances, including the co-defendant’s duress case, there was no arguable error in allowing the conviction to be before the jury.

4. The identification direction was proper. The judge gave a full caution about the need for care, addressed the witness’s opportunity to observe, the imperfect identification procedure and supporting evidence. He also told the jury to place little or no reliance on the dock identification because of its obvious danger. The Court of Appeal held that those directions allowed the jury to assess the identification evidence safely.

5. The extended sentences were correct. The offending involved prolonged and exceptionally brutal violence. The sentencing judge was entitled, on the facts, the pre-sentence material, the lasting harm and Abdullah’s lack of remorse, to find Abdullah dangerous. Pululu’s leading role in planning and carrying out the violence justified the determinate term of 17 years and the extension period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—In [2019] EWCA Crim 1137, the court dismissed Abdullah’s appeal against conviction, refused renewed permission on further conviction grounds, and refused permission to appeal sentence for Abdullah and Pululu.

• Inner London Crown Court—Following a first trial in 2016 and a retrial of Abdullah on outstanding counts in 2017, the defendants were convicted of offences including false imprisonment, robbery, wounding with intent and threats to kill. On 5 May 2017, HHJ Madge imposed extended sentences after finding them dangerous.