R v Riaz Mohammed

A jury is not entitled to receive or hear copies of counsel’s closing speeches because they are submissions, not evidence. A judge may give a brief reminder of essential defence submissions in response to a request for the speeches, but there is no duty to do so. In deciding whether the resulting verdict is unsafe, the court may consider whether the jury had previously sought reminders of evidence, whether the judge made clear that relevant evidence could be revisited, and whether the summing-up fairly and sufficiently covered the defence case.

Following a trial at Birmingham Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of two conspiracies to supply Class A drugs and sentenced to seven years and five months’ imprisonment on the more serious count. His case was circumstantial and he did not give evidence. During lengthy jury deliberations, the jury asked for copies of two defence closing speeches. The judge refused, explaining that speeches were submissions rather than evidence, and said that he could remind the jury about evidence. The appellant argued that the judge should also have summarised the principal defence submissions. The central issue was whether that omission made the convictions unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was right to refuse the jury’s request to hear or receive copies of the defence closing speeches. Closing speeches are submissions by advocates and are not evidence. The jury were not entitled to have them.
2. There was no duty to provide a brief summary of the essential points made in the defence speeches. Some judges might properly give such a reminder in the circumstances, but the decision whether to do so remained discretionary.
3. The convictions were not unsafe. The jury had previously asked for reminders of evidence when required. The judge’s statement that he could remind them about evidence implicitly indicated that they could ask for further reminders. The summing-up had been fair and had specifically reminded the jury of the points made on the appellant’s behalf, including that the case was based on association and circumstantial evidence and that he might have been acting innocently.
4. In those circumstances, the judge’s response did not amount to a mishandling of the trial process producing an unfair consequence.

• Crown Court at Birmingham: Conviction on two counts of conspiring to supply Class A controlled drugs on 21 January 2025, followed by sentence on 12 March 2025.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against conviction dismissed.