R v Wadah Mohammed Abdulla Hassan

On a half-time submission of no case to answer, the appellate question is whether the trial judge made a lawful decision within the legitimate exercise of judgment, not whether the appellate court would have reached a different view. A case based wholly or exclusively on circumstantial evidence can remain strong. Repeated association with conspirators at locations connected with drug dealing, together with evidence of drug transfer, may properly justify leaving the case to the jury even where telephone evidence is weak. At summing-up, weak evidence may be left for the jury in its broader context with a strong indication that it should receive no or limited weight.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Sheffield of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution case was circumstantial and relied principally on surveillance evidence showing repeated association with convicted or admitted conspirators at locations connected with drug dealing, together with evidence of a drug transfer. The trial judge rejected a half-time submission of no case to answer, although he regarded much of the telephone evidence as weak. The appellant appealed against conviction, arguing that the evidence was equally consistent with innocent friendship or drug purchase and that the telephone evidence should have been excluded from the jury’s consideration. The central issues were whether the judge was entitled to leave the case to the jury and whether his treatment of the telephone evidence in the summing-up was legally inconsistent.

Disposition

The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

1. The trial judge’s ruling on the half-time submission was fair and balanced. The appellate court was reviewing an exercise of judgment. Its role was not to decide whether it would have reached a different conclusion, but whether the judge had taken a lawful decision within the legitimate discretion of a trial judge.
2. A trial judge who has heard the prosecution case is particularly well placed to assess circumstantial evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole. A case based wholly or exclusively on circumstantial evidence can in principle remain strong.
3. There was no material dispute that a conspiracy to supply drugs existed. The evidence showed six recorded associations between the appellant and co-defendants, some of whom had been convicted or had pleaded guilty, at locations associated with drug dealing. The associations were friendly and included the physical transfer of drugs to the appellant. Evidence that the appellant tested negative for drug consumption was capable of bearing on whether he was merely a customer. Even leaving aside the weak telephone evidence, the judge was entitled to conclude that the case should be left to the jury.
4. The judge’s treatment of the telephone evidence in the summing-up was not inconsistent with his half-time ruling. He was entitled to address evidence that had been placed before the jury, rather than direct its categorical exclusion, while making clear that it carried little or no weight. The evidence had to be placed in the broader context of the case.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was dismissed in [2025] EWCA Crim 1862.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: The appellant was convicted on 12 June 2024 of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. A half-time submission of no case to answer was rejected.