R v Faheem Younis

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, the Court held that disagreement with a trial judge’s exercise of an evidential discretion is insufficient. The applicant must identify an error of law or principle. A judge may treat a witness as hostile and permit cross-examination where the witness’s trial evidence has materially departed from earlier evidence, provided the ruling and directions are properly reasoned. Where a co-defendant, rather than the prosecution, seeks to adduce previous inconsistent statements, section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is not engaged. Potentially multiple hearsay may be admitted after the trial judge considers reliability and whether its value is so high that admission is in the interests of justice. The renewed application was refused.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Nottingham on 27 July 2023 of murdering Darren Davis by stabbing him during an argument over a drugs debt. He received a life sentence with a minimum term of 24 years.

After a Single Judge refused leave to appeal, he renewed his application. He challenged the decision to allow the prosecution to treat Gary Reid and Simon Ruby as hostile witnesses and to cross-examine them. He also challenged the admission, under section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, of Reid’s previous inconsistent statements, which potentially involved multiple hearsay. The central issue was whether the trial judge had erred in law or principle so that the conviction was arguably unsafe.

Disposition

The Court of Appeal considered the renewed application afresh but adopted the Single Judge’s comprehensive reasons. It refused leave to appeal against conviction.

1. Hostile witnesses. The trial judge’s decision to permit the prosecution to treat Gary Reid and Simon Ruby as hostile witnesses and to cross-examine them was an exercise of discretion. Reid’s trial evidence was diametrically opposed to his earlier account, while Ruby had materially changed his evidence despite being an eyewitness whose evidence was important to the prosecution case. The trial judge fairly explained the changes and gave appropriate directions to the jury. The applicant identified no error of law or principle and merely disagreed with the outcome.
2. Previous inconsistent statements. The application to adduce Reid’s statements was made by the co-defendant, not the prosecution. Accordingly, section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was not engaged.
3. Multiple hearsay. The trial judge correctly considered and applied section 121 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. She was entitled to assess whether the statements were reliable and whether their value was so high that admission was in the interests of justice. The witnesses were subsequently available for cross-examination. As the trial judge was best placed to balance the interests of the applicant, the co-defendant and the prosecution, her ruling fell within the range of reasonable and reasoned decision-making.
4. Safety of conviction. The challenged rulings disclosed no arguable error and had no sufficient adverse effect on the fairness of the trial to render the conviction arguably unsafe.

• Crown Court at Nottingham: On 27 July 2023, the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years.
• Single Judge: Refused leave to appeal against conviction.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2025] EWCA Crim 1632: Considered the renewed application afresh, adopted the Single Judge’s reasons and refused leave.