R v Omer Mohamed

A trial judge has a discretion whether to continue a trial when a defendant seeks to dismiss their legal representatives at a late stage. The exercise of that discretion may take account of the trial’s progress, the delay and expense of a retrial, the case’s complexity, and whether the defendant’s case can fairly be advanced by other means.

A renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction will fail where, taking the circumstances overall, the proposed grounds disclose no arguable basis for finding the convictions unsafe.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Cardiff of offences involving the supply and production of class A drugs and possession of criminal property. He was sentenced to seven and a half years’ imprisonment.

During his evidence at trial, the applicant said that he no longer wished to answer questions and later sought to dismiss his legal team. The trial judge declined to adjourn for new representation and allowed the trial to continue with the applicant acting in person. The applicant renewed applications for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction and for a representation order. He alleged that the judge should have discharged the jury and ordered a retrial, and raised matters concerning the location of drugs and interviews.

Disposition

The court refused the applications for an extension of time, leave to appeal against conviction, and a representation order.

1. A trial judge has a discretion whether to continue a trial, and whether to permit a defendant to obtain new representation, where representation breaks down during the proceedings. The discretion was available in the present circumstances: see Stovell [2006] EWCA Crim 27.

2. The judge had made the available options clear. The applicant had been represented throughout the prosecution case, the trial was at a late stage, and a retrial would have caused further delay and expense in respect of offences dating from 2019. The case was not complex.

3. The applicant’s brother, who advanced the same case, remained represented. His counsel would inevitably have addressed much material relevant to the applicant. The summing-up was fair, the legal directions were sufficient, and the applicant’s defence was put before the jury.

4. There had been ample opportunity to explore the alleged inconsistency about the location of drugs and to ask questions concerning interviews. The applicant did not explain how those matters could affect the safety of the convictions.

5. Taking the matter overall, there were no arguable grounds for contending that any conviction was unsafe. There was therefore no purpose in extending time to seek leave to appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications refused in [2024] EWCA Crim 782.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: the applicant was convicted on 21 July 2023 and sentenced on 21 September 2023 to seven and a half years’ imprisonment.