R v Jan Ali Gholami

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, an appellate court will not interfere where the trial judge has carefully applied the statutory admissibility and fairness safeguards, and the proposed ground identifies no arguable error capable of making the conviction unsafe. Hearsay may be admitted where the statutory interests-of-justice factors, together with prejudice and other relevant considerations, support admission. Bad character or propensity evidence must be accompanied by clear directions on its permissible relevance and use. A direction need not reproduce every suggested phrase if, read as a whole, it leaves no realistic possibility that the jury were misled.

The applicant was convicted of murder after a trial at the Crown Court at Maidstone before Wall J and a jury. The prosecution alleged that he had inflicted fatal injuries on his adopted daughter and had attempted to create an alibi. The appeal concerned the admission of evidence that he had told hospital doctors that his wife had telephoned him while he was at Tesco, the admission of hearsay evidence said to show a propensity for domestic violence, and the adequacy of the bad-character directions.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal after refusal by the single judge. The central question was whether any proposed ground disclosed an arguable error such that the conviction might be unsafe.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. None of the proposed grounds disclosed an arguable basis for concluding that the conviction might be unsafe.

2. The trial judge was entitled to admit the evidence concerning what the applicant had told the hospital doctors. The judge had considered the further evidence, including an almost contemporaneous note recording the interpretation of the applicant’s words, and was entitled to leave the issue for the jury to test in cross-examination and decide.

3. The hearsay evidence concerning alleged domestic violence was admissible under section 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The trial judge had considered the factors in section 114(2), the importance of the evidence to the central issues, supporting material concerning its truthfulness, potential prejudice and the possibility of satellite litigation. He was entitled to conclude that the interests of justice favoured admission. His further conclusion that the material should not be excluded on fairness grounds under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Act 1978 disclosed no arguable error.

4. The summing-up was to be read as a whole. Although the judge had said that the jury could not rely “wholly” on the bad-character evidence and had not added “or mainly”, the directions clearly explained that the evidence was only part of the case, could not be used as a shortcut, and could not alone determine guilt. There was no realistic possibility that the omission misled the jury.

• Crown Court at Maidstone: following a trial before Wall J and a jury, the applicant was convicted of murder on 9 January 2024.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the single judge refused leave. The Court of Appeal refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.