R v Sohila Tamiz & Anor

Evidence of a non-defendant’s bad character is admissible under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 100 only where the statutory threshold is met. Evidence said to bear on credibility must have substantial probative value and must assist a fair-minded jury in deciding whether the witness’s evidence is worthy of belief. Unrelated convictions, old convictions, and general attacks on a witness’s character do not meet that threshold. A jury may consider evidence relating to other counts when deciding an individual count, provided each count is considered separately and the direction is fair and balanced. In an unusual case involving closely similar alleged offences, a suitably adapted coincidence direction may be appropriate. A renewed application for permission to appeal should engage with the single judge’s reasons; automatic repetition may justify a loss of time order.

Sohila Tamiz and Pedram Tamiz were convicted after a four-and-a-half-week trial before Judge Lowe and a jury of conspiracies involving harassment, unlawful eviction and related offending against tenants of a property they owned and managed. They sought permission to appeal against conviction on nine grounds, principally challenging rulings excluding bad character material concerning prosecution witnesses and the judge’s directions on background disputes and the evidence as a whole. Pedram Tamiz’s separate sentence application had been refused and was abandoned.

Julian Knowles J, sitting as the single judge, refused permission to appeal after detailed consideration. The applicants renewed their applications before the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether the excluded material satisfied section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and whether the jury directions rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. Renewed applications refused. The court held that none of the nine grounds was arguable and that both convictions were safe. No loss of time orders were made, although the court gave a clear warning about the future consequences of renewing hopeless applications without engaging with the single judge’s reasons.
2. Non-defendant bad character. Section 100 requires evidence relied upon as relevant to an issue to have substantial probative value and substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. Convictions relevant to credibility must directly bear on a tendency to lie, or be reasonably capable of assisting a fair-minded jury to assess whether the witness’s evidence is worthy of belief. Old or relatively minor convictions, convictions occurring after the events, and evidence amounting only to a general character attack do not satisfy the threshold. The excluded material concerning the tenants and their associates was either irrelevant, insufficiently probative, or unsupported by the necessary applications.
3. Procedural fairness. Material requiring both bad character and hearsay applications could not properly be introduced without those applications. It was also unfair to put material to a witness at a later stage where the substance had not been put to the relevant earlier witness. A serious allegation of collusion should be put fairly and squarely to the alleged participants before later evidence is adduced to support it.
4. Jury directions. The trial judge’s direction on background disputes did not direct the jury to treat unproved accusations as lies. It properly explained that the jury need not resolve every background dispute, while allowing it to use relevant background evidence in assessing context and credibility. Under R v Freeman [2009] 1 WLR 2723, the jury may consider evidence on one count when deciding another without first being sure of guilt on the first count. In accordance with R v McAllister (2009) 1 Cr App R 10, this should be approached as coincidence rather than propensity. The direction was fair and balanced because it required separate consideration of each count and expressly left the defence case of collusion and alternative perpetrators before the jury.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction refused. The court held the convictions safe and made no loss of time orders.
2. Crown Court trial: Following trial before Judge Lowe and a jury, Sohila Tamiz and Pedram Tamiz were convicted on multiple counts. Sohila Tamiz was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and Pedram Tamiz to 40 months’ imprisonment.
3. Single judge: Julian Knowles J refused permission to appeal against conviction after detailed consideration. Permission to appeal against Pedram Tamiz’s sentence was refused and that application was abandoned.