R v Nahim Mohammed

Judicial interventions must be assessed by their nature and effect on trial fairness, rather than their number alone. Neutral questions which clarify evidence are permissible, but the judge must preserve the defendant’s opportunity to present his account and counsel’s ability to conduct the defence. Jurors may seek clarification of evidence. Inviting them to identify evidential gaps for further investigation is inconsistent with the adversarial system. Jury questions should normally be shown to counsel, and their handling must preserve the orderly presentation of evidence. Questions must be read fairly and as a whole, without expecting a lawyer’s precision. Departures from good practice do not invariably make a conviction unsafe. Clear directions may preserve fairness where the questions and interventions have not undermined the prosecution’s burden of proof or the proper presentation of the defence.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Aylesbury of controlling or coercive behaviour towards Rachel Elmer, his former partner and the mother of their child, contrary to section 76(1) and (11) of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The prosecution alleged that he controlled her clothing, social contacts, movements and conduct as a mother. He denied controlling or coercing her. He received a sentence of two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years, with unpaid work and rehabilitation activity requirements.

The appellant appealed against conviction with leave of the single judge. He challenged the trial judge’s questioning of witnesses and handling of 24 jury notes. He contended that these matters encouraged an investigatory approach, shifted the burden of proof and interfered with the presentation of his defence. The trial judge had refused an application to discharge the jury after giving corrective directions. The central issue was whether the conduct of the evidential stages rendered the trial unfair despite the unchallenged legal directions and summing up.

Appeal dismissed. The judicial interventions and handling of jury questions, considered in context, had not rendered the trial unfair or the conviction unsafe.

1. The assessment concerned the nature and effect of interventions, rather than their frequency alone. The judge must remain a neutral umpire in an adversarial trial. Relevant concerns included interventions which invited rejection of the defence in terms incapable of cure, prevented counsel from properly presenting the defence, or prevented the defendant from giving his account fairly. Those principles were drawn from R v Inns, R v Hulusi and Purvis, R v Hamilton and R v Matthews. Under Randall v The Queen, departures from good practice did not invariably undermine trial fairness, although the right to a fair trial was absolute (paras 35–40).

2. The appellant’s evidence-in-chief and cross-examination had proceeded without material interference. An instruction that he needed to remember an event was, in context, an attempt to clarify its timing by reference to a message. Requiring defence counsel to put documents which she claimed supported her questions to the complainant did not shift the burden of proof (paras 43–46).

3. The judge’s unusually extensive questioning of the complainant was predominantly neutral clarification and checking of her notes. Some answers added detail, but the questioning neither endorsed the prosecution case nor invited disbelief of the defence. Counsel could ask further questions. A few questions subsequently put to the appellant were inappropriate, but were isolated departures from good practice which did not undermine trial fairness (paras 47–51).

4. Jury notes should normally be shown to counsel before their questions were addressed. The initial failure to do so was inappropriate but caused no unfairness. Later notes were discussed with counsel and did not interrupt the appellant’s evidence-in-chief or cross-examination. Their handling did not impair counsel’s presentation of the defence (paras 52–57, 62).

5. Inviting jurors to identify gaps in the evidence for investigation was wrong and inconsistent with the adversarial system. Nevertheless, their questions, read fairly and as a whole, did not show that they had transferred the prosecution’s burden to the defence. A question concerning an unsupported allegation did not require the appellant to disprove it, and the judge firmly directed the jury to disregard that allegation. Clear directions explained the jury’s proper role and the prosecution’s continuing burden and standard of proof. The judge therefore did not err in refusing to discharge the jury (paras 58–61).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 1330 , dismissed the appeal against conviction, brought with leave of the single judge.
• Crown Court at Aylesbury: Following trial before Recorder Nicola Williams, the appellant was convicted on 7 July 2025 of controlling or coercive behaviour. The judge refused an application to discharge the jury. On 19 September 2025, the appellant received two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years, with 240 hours of unpaid work and a rehabilitation activity requirement of no more than 20 days.