R v Mamunroshid Miah

Where it is alleged that an inadvertent reference in evidence may have prejudiced a jury, the question is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real danger that the jury was prejudiced by wrongly admitted information. That assessment is contextual. A fleeting and ambiguous reference, which does not identify the defendant or explain an acronym, will not render convictions arguably unsafe merely because it might carry a prejudicial meaning unknown to the jury.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to two breaches of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. Following a trial, he was convicted of false imprisonment and two assaults by beating, and received a total sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by a single judge. His sole ground concerned two passages in the evidence of the father of one complainant: a reference to calling an officer described as “MOSOVO”, and a vague statement that there were matters he could not discuss. He contended that these references might have led the jury to think that he was a convicted sex offender.

The central issue was whether those references created a real danger of jury prejudice so that the convictions were arguably unsafe.

1. The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. The convictions were not arguably unsafe.

2. The ultimate question was whether the convictions were safe. In addressing alleged prejudice from wrongly admitted information, the court considered whether a fair-minded and informed observer would find a real possibility or danger that the jury had been prejudiced. The assessment had to be made in the context in which the challenged references occurred.

3. The reference to “MOSOVO” arose when the complainant’s father was asked whether he had called the police. Its ordinary and natural meaning was that he had called an officer called “Mosovo”. Nothing explained it as an acronym or connected it to the applicant. The court did not regard the acronym as widely known, and even trial counsel had not known its meaning.

4. The father’s separate statement that there were matters he could not discuss was likewise fleeting. It arose in a discussion about whether the complainant might go to live with her mother in Liverpool. It had no apparent link either to a previous sexual offence or to MOSOVO.

5. No contemporaneous complaint was made about either passage. In the wider evidential context, the jury knew that the applicant and the complainant’s father had a disagreeable relationship. The court was satisfied that a fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was a real danger that the jury believed the applicant to be a convicted sex offender.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused in [2025] EWCA Crim 465.

• Crown Court at Chelmsford: The applicant pleaded guilty to two breaches of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, was later convicted after trial of false imprisonment and two assaults by beating, and was sentenced to a total of 36 months’ imprisonment.