REGINA v ADIQANI MAHAMUD

Evidence of recent drug-supply offending may be admissible as bad-character evidence under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 101(1)(d) where it is relevant to whether the defendant participated in an alleged conspiracy to rob a substantial quantity of the same controlled drugs. The relevance may arise from the defendant’s recent knowledge of, and involvement in, that drug market when the alleged target was drugs of that kind.

Admissibility does not become unfair merely because comparable previous drug convictions of co-accused were not adduced, particularly where those convictions were older. Sentencing assessments under applicable guidelines and the totality principle will not be disturbed where they properly reflect planning, risk of grave harm, related offending and credit for guilty pleas.

The applicant was convicted at Harrow Crown Court of firearms and ammunition offences, possession of a bladed article, and conspiracy to rob. The prosecution case was that he and four co-accused planned an armed robbery of a flat believed to contain cocaine and cash.

At trial, the judge admitted evidence that the applicant had pleaded guilty on another indictment to conspiracies to supply class A and class B drugs. The evidence was relied on to support the alleged conspiracy to rob drugs. The applicant challenged that ruling and the jury direction, and also contended that his aggregate sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

He sought a 12-week extension of time to renew an application for permission to appeal against conviction, and renewed his applications for permission to appeal against sentence.

1. The court refused the extension of time to renew the conviction application and refused permission to appeal against sentence. There were no arguable grounds affecting the safety of the convictions or showing that the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

2. The applicant’s recent participation in conspiracies to supply controlled drugs was relevant to an important matter in issue. His defence denied both an agreement to rob and his involvement in it. The recent offending showed his familiarity with, and recent unlawful involvement in, class A drugs, which were the alleged object of the proposed robbery. In the surrounding circumstances, it supported the prosecution case that his conduct at the flats was directed to stealing those drugs rather than an innocent purpose.

3. The trial judge was therefore correct to admit the evidence under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Its admission was not unfair under section 101(3). The jury direction accurately identified the potential relevance of the evidence while also directing attention to the defence points that the earlier drug offending concerned street supply, involved no violence, and differed from armed robbery.

4. The firearms offences were properly assessed as Category 2A. Extensive planning supported culpability A, and the firearms created a high risk of death or severe physical or psychological harm. The presence of two firearms and organised gang activity justified a sentence towards the upper end of the range, with proper account taken of the connected robbery and fraud offending.

5. The concurrent 15-year sentence for conspiracy to rob was also justified. A consecutive five-year term for the class A drugs conspiracy adequately reflected totality after reductions for the guilty pleas and the overall sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2022] EWCA Crim 381, refused an extension of time to renew the application concerning conviction and found no arguable ground on conviction or sentence.

• Crown Court at Harrow: Convicted the applicant on 23 March 2021 and sentenced him on 26 August 2021 to an aggregate term of 22 years’ imprisonment across three indictments.