Regina v Amin

Factual and Procedural Background

On 5 December 2013, at the Crown Court at Southwark, the Appellant was convicted by a jury of perverting the course of justice and preventing a public burial. The trial judge sentenced the Appellant to 8 years' imprisonment on the first count and a concurrent term of 5 years on the second. The Appellant appealed against conviction and renewed an application to appeal against sentence following refusal by a single judge.

The case arose from the murder of a 20-year-old woman whose body was found buried in a suitcase in Birmingham. The victim had gone missing in January 2006. Several relatives and associates, including the victim's father and uncle, were convicted of her murder, motivated by disapproval of her relationship with a man named Rahmat Sulemani.

The prosecution alleged that the Appellant, a nephew of two convicted relatives, was involved in the disposal of the body. Evidence included cell site data suggesting the Appellant's presence at relevant locations, ATM withdrawal near the burial site, forensic fibre evidence linking the Appellant's vehicle to the suitcase, and covert recordings of prison conversations implicating the Appellant. The Appellant denied being in Birmingham at the relevant time, claimed to have lent his car and phone to others, and disputed the accuracy of the covert recordings.

During the investigation, the Appellant was interviewed multiple times, maintaining that he was not involved in the murder or disposal, attributing certain evidence to others' use of his property. The covert recordings were made during prison visits to two of the Appellant's co-accused, who admitted involvement and implicated the Appellant. The trial judge admitted these recordings as evidence under statutory provisions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of four covertly recorded prison conversations implicating the Appellant, given that the Appellant was not present during those conversations and could not cross-examine the declarants.
2. Whether the sentence of 8 years' imprisonment for perverting the course of justice was manifestly excessive, considering the facts and relevant sentencing principles.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge failed properly to consider the risk that the declarants in the covert recordings were mistaken or had a hostile motive to implicate the Appellant, possibly to protect others.
• The hearsay evidence from the covert recordings was highly prejudicial because the Appellant could not cross-examine the declarants, and this evidence was the only material directly implicating the Appellant.
• The Crown should have called the declarants to give evidence rather than relying on covert recordings.
• The sentence was manifestly excessive, with an improperly high starting point and insufficient consideration of delay between the offence and sentencing.
• Reliance on precedent was misplaced, as prior cases involved different factual and legal contexts.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The judge gave a detailed ruling considering all relevant statutory factors under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, concluding the evidence was highly probative and reliable.
• The covert recordings were corroborated by other evidence, including cell site data and forensic findings.
• The declarants made self-incriminatory admissions in circumstances suggesting reliability and no reason to fabricate evidence against the Appellant.
• The Appellant had opportunity to challenge the evidence through his own testimony and by highlighting potential motives.
• The hearsay evidence was part of a broader evidential picture and did not stand alone as the sole basis for conviction.
• The sentence was appropriate given the Appellant's role in the concealment of the murder, lack of remorse, and aggravating factors; delay and prior good character did not warrant reduction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the admissibility of the covert recordings under section 114(1)(d) and 114(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It considered the probative value of the evidence, its relevance to the central issues, and the corroboration provided by other evidence such as cell site data and forensic links. The court found the recordings reliable, noting the declarants' self-incriminating admissions made without awareness of being overheard, and rejected the suggestion of hostile motive or fabrication.

The court acknowledged the inherent prejudice in admitting hearsay evidence but concluded that the interests of justice were served by admission, especially given the Appellant's ability to challenge the evidence through his own testimony and the jury directions emphasizing caution.

Regarding sentencing, the court found the judge had properly assessed aggravating factors including the Appellant's knowledge of the murder plan, active role in concealing the body, and lack of remorse. The court rejected the Appellant's argument about delay and the applicability of prior sentencing precedents, emphasizing the unique facts and legal context of the case.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against conviction is DISMISSED. The court upheld the trial judge's decision to admit the covert recordings as evidence and found the convictions to be safe.

The renewed application to appeal the sentence is REFUSED. The sentence of 8 years' imprisonment for perverting the course of justice was held to be appropriate given the facts and aggravating circumstances.

This decision directly affects the parties by affirming the convictions and sentence. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory provisions and case law.