R v Omer Mohamed
[2024] EWCA Crim 782
R v Rashid Mahmood
17 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1358
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of importing heroin. His lawyer wasn't very good, and he didn't give evidence in court because he was scared. Even though his lawyer messed up, the evidence against him was strong enough that the judge decided he was still guilty.
Key Facts
- •Rashid Mahmood and Ashgar Khan were convicted of conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of diamorphine (heroin) on 12 December 2018.
- •They were each sentenced to 18 years imprisonment.
- •Mahmood's appeal against conviction was significantly delayed (1377 days).
- •The delay was attributed to a series of issues including changing counsel, dealing with medical issues, and the impact of Covid-19.
- •Mahmood's defence at trial was that he did not commit the offence and that others had access to his phone.
- •The prosecution's case relied heavily on mobile phone and cell site evidence linking Mahmood to the drug importation.
- •Mahmood did not give evidence at trial.
- •His trial counsel's closing speech contained a comment that the appellant might have handled one of the phones, a point not explicitly raised beforehand by the defence.
- •Mahmood claimed inadequate preparation of his case by his solicitor and barrister.
Legal Principles
Incompetent representation alone does not form a ground of appeal unless it renders the trial process unfair or unsafe.
R v Day [2003] EWCA Crim 1060
When a defendant decides not to give evidence, counsel should make a record of the decision, including a summary of the reasons, have the defendant sign it, and keep a copy.
R v Good (Alfie) 2016 EWCA Crim 1869
Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 requires the judge to warn the jury that they may draw inferences if a defendant chooses not to give evidence.
Section 35, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Outcomes
Mahmood's application for an extension of time to appeal and his appeal against conviction were dismissed.
The court found that while there were concerns regarding the quality of Mahmood's legal representation, particularly concerning solicitor client care and advice on giving evidence, these did not render the conviction unsafe. The prosecution's case was strong and the alleged failings of the defence team did not undermine the safety of the conviction.