R v Muhammed Gure

Where a witness is properly treated as hostile, the prosecution may put that witness’s previous inconsistent police-interview statements to the witness and, under section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, invite the jury to treat them as true.

Admission of that evidence does not render a conviction unsafe where the defence can challenge the reliability and accuracy of the earlier account and the jury is carefully directed to disregard it unless sure of its accuracy.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against convictions for causing death by dangerous driving, causing death by driving whilst disqualified, and causing death by driving whilst uninsured. The convictions followed a fatal collision outside Earls Court tube station on 1 January 2021.

The central issue at trial was whether the applicant was the driver of the hired vehicle. He accepted that he was in it but denied driving. A witness who had initially told police that the applicant drove the vehicle later professed no memory of the events. The trial judge permitted the prosecution to treat that witness as hostile and to cross-examine him on his earlier police interview.

The renewed application challenged the admission and use of that evidence.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. The court agreed with the single judge that the trial judge had dealt with the evidential issue with meticulous care and skill. It was not arguable that the convictions were unsafe.
2. The trial judge was entitled to treat the witness as hostile. Once that course was properly taken, the prosecution could put the witness’s previous inconsistent police-interview statements to him.
3. Under section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the prosecution could invite the jury to treat those statements as true. The defence was able directly to challenge the reliability and accuracy of the interview account by questioning the witness about what he had said and why.
4. This was not a case in which an absent witness’s statement had been admitted without an opportunity for challenge. The judge had also directed the jury fully and carefully that they must ignore the police-interview account unless sure of its accuracy.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 589 .
• Crown Court at Southwark — the applicant was convicted following trial. The issue was whether he was the driver of the vehicle involved in the fatal collision.