R v Ahmed
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LATHAM,Lord Justice Latham |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWCA Crim 2599,[2004] EWCA Crim 202 |
| Docket Number | No: 2003/3418/B1 & 2003/3419/B1,Case No: 2003/1628/4092/4390 & 2004/1032 D1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 28 October 2004 |
[2004] EWCA Crim 202
Lord Justice Latham
Mr Justice Curtis
Mr Justice Bell
No: 2003/3418/B1 & 2003/3419/B1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
MISS L HAYHOW appeared on behalf of Saeed
MR D JONES appeared on behalf of Ahmed
MISS C BUCKHAVEN appeared on behalf of the CROWN
On 9th May 2003 in the Crown Court at Isleworth before Mr Recorder Peddie QC, these two appellants were convicted of robbery and assault with intent to rob. They were subsequently sentenced as follows: Ahmed Saeed was sentenced to 18 months' detention in a young offender institution and Issa Ahmed was sentenced to 30 months' detention in a young offender institution. In both cases that was for each offence and the sentences were to be served concurrently. They appeal to this court against conviction with leave of the single judge which has been restricted simply to one ground in relation to the count charging assault with intent to rob. It is right to say that there were applications for leave to appeal in relation to count 1 and also there were grounds which the single judge considered had no merit in relation to ground 2. We should say at the beginning that we have considered those grounds other than the one which is pursued with leave today and are quite satisfied that the judge was correct in refusing to give leave on those grounds; they had no merit.
The one ground which has possible merit is that in relation to the second count in the indictment the judge wrongly admitted the evidence of a witness in relation to her identification of these appellants when there had been breaches of the Code of Practice in relation to that identification.
The circumstances of the offences can be taken relatively shortly. It may be, however, appropriate to put the second count in context by dealing shortly with count 1 which related to an incident on a bus on the night of 2nd August when a young man was on the top deck of the bus when he was surrounded, in effect, by a group of young Somali youths. He was concerned about their behaviour and he was right to be concerned because one of the youths then attempted to take something from his pockets and another tried to take a ring from his finger. When he tried to get away he was seized from behind and a number of hands then searched him as a result of which he lost his bus pass and a travelcard. He managed to break free but whilst he was on the lower deck trying to get off at the next bus stop and was asking the driver to call the police, he received a flying kick from behind and then felt a bottle smash over his head.
The two appellants were amongst those Somali youths, though it was not suggested that they had done more than encourage what was happening. It was not suggested by the prosecution that either had been specifically involved in taking the items or in the serious violence which occurred on the ground floor deck of the bus.
It was only two to three hours later that the second incident occurred which formed the subject matter of the second count. Again the incident involved a crowd of Somali youths and a victim who was on a bus. The Somali youths were co-passengers and the victim, who had been out for the evening, was asleep when he woke to find himself being searched. He thought that they were trying to obtain either his wallet or his phone and he, like the first victim, tried to get away and indeed he was able to get away in the sense that he managed to get off the bus. He was unfortunately followed by the Somali youths and when he was surrounded on the pavement he was hit on the head with a bottle. He, as has had happened to the first victim, was also kicked. He suffered a gash to the left temple, grazing over the left eye, had a black eye and a bleeding nose.
The incident on the pavement had been witnessed by a Miss X. Miss X was a young girl who in fact was, she admitted, a drug addict. She was a girl who had previous convictions for robbery and theft, but she had, despite those convictions, the bravery to go to see if she could assist the victim. She was able to staunch the blood which was flowing from his head wound and she telephoned for the police. When the police arrived she was taken in a car around the surrounding area. Outside a railway station she saw a Somali who had in fact been stopped by a police officer who was still in the vicinity. She identified that Somali as one of youths and that was Saeed. She was then taken further around the area and identified two others who she said had been in the group that was Ahmed and a young man who became a co-defendant.
The appellants were therefore arrested and taken to the police station and interviewed. Both of them in interview admitted being present at both incidents. Their clothing was taken for forensic analysis and on both of them were found spots of blood which provided a match with the blood of the victims.
Neither appellant gave evidence at trial. Counsel for both appellants sought to exclude the evidence of Miss X. The judge having heard submissions concluded that there had been breaches of the Code of Practice in relation to the identification evidence that she gave on the basis that identification parades should have been held and indeed the identification of Saeed at the railway station was clearly one which was open to some criticism. Nonetheless, he concluded in the exercise of his discretion that it would be proper for that evidence to be admitted.
The single ground of appeal which the judge gave leave to argue is to the effect that that ruling was wrong and counsel for both appellants have so submitted to us today. It is said by both of them that the breaches of the Code of Practice were such that the evidence should not have been put before the jury.
It seems to us that the judge dealt with the matter impeccably. In his ruling he noted that the evidence of Miss X essentially went very little further than had been admitted by the appellants themselves, namely presence at the scene. In other words, it could clearly be shown that her identification was reliable.
It is submitted that in some way or another the evidence of Miss X however went further than mere evidence as to their presence and it is correct to say that when she gave her evidence she indicated that there were two groups. She said that some of the boys -therefore she must have been referring to the large crowd that she had clearly first seen when the incident started -were not involved. However, she identified both Saeed and Ahmed as being there in contra-distinction to those who were definitely not involved. The judge in his summing-up related her evidence to that effect. Clearly, accordingly, her evidence was to some extent more damning to the appellants than their admissions that they were there. The judge made it plain to the jury in his summing-up that the jury would have to be satisfied not merely that the appellants were there but that they had played some part by way of encouragement or otherwise of those who had been the perpetrators of either the physical taking of objects or searching for objects or of the violence itself. It seems to us that the jury were perfectly entitled to conclude that they were so satisfied, not merely from the evidence of Miss X but also by reason of the fact that there was the forensic evidence which whilst not supporting any allegation that they had taken part in the violence itself in a physical way, nonetheless put them close to the place where blood was being splashed in a way which in our judgment fully justified the jury in concluding that they must have been part of the group which was at the very least encouraging those who were attacking the victim.
In all those circumstances, we can see nothing in this ground of appeal. The judge was entitled to admit the evidence of Miss X. He directed the jury properly in relation to the consequences of his admitting that evidence and the jury's verdict is, in our judgment, a safe and sound verdict. Accordingly these appeals must be dismissed.
[2004] EWCA Crim 2599
Lord Justice Latham
Mr Justice Pitchers and
Mr Justice Royce
Case No: 2003/1628/4092/4390 & 2004/1032 D1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM WOOD GREEN CROWN COURT
HHJ WINSTANLEY
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Michael J Brompton (QC) & Miss Janet Weekes (instructed by HM Customs & Excise) for the Crown
Mr Michael House (instructed by Registrar) for the Appellant Muntaz Ahmed
Mr Simon Farrell, QC (instructed by the Registrar) for the Appellant Ghulam Qureshi
The appellant Qureshi pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to contravene s. 93C(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The particulars were that he, together with others, conspired to convert cash which he knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect was, in whole or in part directly or indirectly or indirectly represented, another persons proceeds from criminal conduct for the purpose of assisting another person to avoid prosecution. The appellant Ahmed was convicted of a conspiracy to contravene Section 49(2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and/or Section 93C(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contrary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Peter Edwin Morrison
...to act in a way to avoid hardship or injustice to a third party. 83 Both parties referred us to the case of R v Ahmed and Qureshi [2004] EWCA Crim 2599; [2005] 1 WLR 122, which was decided by a Court presided over by Latham LJ. In giving the judgment of the Court, Latham LJ noted the pote......
-
R v Saik
...took away the judge's discretion that had previously permitted this result. That this is so is confirmed by R v Ahmed and Qureshi [2004] EWCA Crim 2599. But, as Latham LJ pointed out at para 12 of the court's judgment, Article 8 rights come into play if the confiscation debt is not met and ......
-
R v Raymond George May
...court retained its original discretion: see page 330, final paragraph. We therefore agree with the decision of this court in Ahmed [2004] EWCA Crim 2599; [2005] 1 All E R 128 that under the 1988 Act in its amended form the court had no statutory discretion in assessing the value of realisab......
-
R v Raymond George May
...sum is recoverable from D? In some cases (such as R v Chrastny (No 2) [1991] 1 WLR 1385, R v Walls [2003] 1 WLR 731 and R v Ahmed [2005] 1 WLR 122) there may be no dispute how one or more of these questions should be answered, but the questions are distinct and the answer given to one do......
-
Confiscation Of The Proceeds Of Crime In The UK
...in the supply of cannabis, but that was not before the jury and was not proceeded with. Ibid. at paragraph 134. Ibid. at paragraph 77. [2005] 1 WLR 122. Ibid. at paragraphs 11 and [2008] EWCA Crim 1809. Ibid. at paragraph 24. [2009] EWCA Crim 194. [2008] EWCA Crim 1323. Morgan and Byegrave ......
-
Confiscation Orders: Avoid a ‘Determination’ by ‘Taking a View’: R v Hilton (Northern Ireland) [2020] UKSC 29
...reflectthe relative ease of that stage. The court is engaged in an ‘arithmetic exercise of computing’ (quotingLatham LJ in RvAhmed[2005] 1 WLR 122, at para [11]) the statutory personal debt which thedefendant owes. This sum reflects the total extent of the defendant’s enrichment, or might b......