R v Waqar Ahmad

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, the question is whether it is arguable that the conviction was unsafe. A defendant’s ADHD or other neuro-diversity does not, without more, establish an unfair trial. The court must consider whether the condition affected the defendant’s ability to follow proceedings and participate, and whether suitable measures were provided. Relevant measures may include intermediary assistance, appropriate directions, and adjustments to the presentation of evidence. Where those measures were provided, the defendant gave a coherent account of the defence, and the evidence independently established the material events, complaints about the absence of further specialist evidence or difficulties in communication will not necessarily make the conviction unsafe.

The applicant was jointly charged with three co-accused with affray. After his representatives withdrew during the first trial, his case was severed. He was later convicted at the Crown Court at Isleworth and sentenced to a suspended term of seven months’ imprisonment with a rehabilitation activity requirement.

He renewed his application for leave to appeal after refusal by a single judge. He relied principally on ADHD, anxiety, the absence of an ADHD specialist, alleged shortcomings in intermediary assistance and representation, the failure to call a witness, and other complaints concerning custody and the appeal process. The central issue was whether those matters made it arguable that his conviction was unsafe.

1. Application refused. The court concluded that it was not arguable that the conviction was unsafe.
2. The applicant’s ADHD and anxiety had been brought to the attention of the trial court. Their effect on his ability to follow proceedings and participate had been considered through reports and assessments. An intermediary assisted him throughout the trial, and measures were identified to mitigate his communication difficulties.
3. The summing-up properly referred to the applicant’s ADHD, including its possible effects on short-term memory and anxiety. The jury was also directed on the use of an intermediary. Nothing in the summing-up was open to criticism.
4. The applicant had given cogent evidence explaining his case that he had acted in self-defence of himself and another. He was able to answer questions in cross-examination, and the judge fully reminded the jury of his evidence.
5. Although communication with the applicant had been difficult, there was no basis for concluding that counsel or solicitors had fallen short of their professional obligations. The applicant’s defence was presented in accordance with his instructions. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution, including CCTV and mobile-phone footage covering the incident, was independent and comprehensive.
6. The trial judge’s decisions concerning the absent witness were case-management decisions made by a judge better placed to assess the applications. The applicant did not seek to impugn those decisions.
7. The court therefore refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 30 January 2026, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction: [2026] EWCA Crim 156.
2. Crown Court at Isleworth: The applicant was convicted of affray in December 2024 and sentenced on 6 May 2025 to a suspended sentence order of seven months’ imprisonment for two years, with a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 20 days.