Key Facts
- •Sohila Tamiz (ST) and Pedram Tamiz (PT), mother and son, were convicted of harassment and unlawful eviction of tenants.
- •They managed a property with 26 flats, targeting vulnerable tenants.
- •Offenses included conspiracy to interfere with tenants' peace, unlawful eviction, and burglary.
- •The trial lasted four and a half weeks, with evidence of threats, violence, and property damage.
- •ST and PT appealed their convictions based on nine grounds, primarily focusing on the trial judge's refusal to admit bad character evidence of tenants.
- •Two co-defendants, McChesney and El Darrat, were also convicted but did not appeal.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of non-defendant's bad character evidence
s.100 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Substantial probative value and importance of bad character evidence
R v Braithwaite [2010] EWCA Crim 1082 and R v Phillips [2011] EWCA Crim 2935
Relevance of previous convictions for credibility
R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 and R v Brewster [2011] 1 WLR 601
Relevance of old and less serious convictions
R v Garman [2008] EWCA Crim 266 and R v Moody [2019] EWCA Crim 1222
Jury's consideration of evidence across multiple counts
R v Freeman [2009] 1 WLR 2723
Coincidence vs. propensity in considering evidence across counts
R v McAllister (2009) 1 Cr App R 10
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed
The court found the grounds of appeal to be unarguable, lacking substantial probative value and relevance. The trial judge's decisions regarding the admission of bad character evidence were deemed correct and within his discretion. The overall evidence against ST and PT was deemed overwhelming.
No loss of time orders made
While the court considered the appeal to be hopeless and a waste of resources, they decided against loss of time orders due to the personal circumstances of ST and PT, the single judge's failure to tick the relevant box, and submissions from Mr Vaughan.