Fareed, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 17 July 2020, the Appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of failure to comply with a Serious Crime Prevention Order (count 3) at the Crown Court at Manchester. On 2 June 2021, the Appellant changed his plea to guilty for a further failure to comply offence (count 4). Following a trial concluding on 30 June 2021 before His Honour Judge Dean KC and a jury, the Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery (count 1) and acquitted of another failure to comply offence (count 2). On 7 July 2021, the Appellant was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment on count 1, with no separate penalties for counts 3 or 4. Leave to appeal against conviction was granted on 18 March 2025, limited to grounds 3 and 6, with an extension of time also granted.

The conspiracy involved 14 robberies and attempted robberies of online vehicle buyers from September 2019 to February 2020. The group used fake online advertisements and pay-as-you-go mobiles to lure victims to secluded locations where they were robbed by armed men. The Appellant was alleged to be the principal conspirator, controlling a telephone number in breach of the Serious Crime Prevention Order. The defence contended that another individual was the organiser, and that the Appellant was not involved.

The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including telephone co-location data, association with vehicles used in the offences, recovery of weapons, DNA evidence, incriminating text messages, and voice notes. The Appellant gave evidence denying involvement, explaining his associations and movements, and asserting that another individual controlled the key telephone number. The trial included cross-examination focusing on the Appellant's character and communications.

The appeal concerns two grounds relating to evidential material admitted at trial: a photograph of the Appellant with a vehicle bearing a registration plate reading "EVIL YOB" and text messages referring to the Appellant as the "Godfather of Oldham". The Appellant contends these materials were prejudicial and improperly admitted, affecting the safety of the conviction.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the admission of a photograph showing the Appellant with a vehicle bearing the registration "EVIL YOB" was prejudicial and improperly admitted without prior disclosure.
2. Whether the admission of text messages referring to the Appellant as the "Godfather of Oldham" was unfairly prejudicial and improperly admitted.
3. Whether the judge's directions to the jury adequately addressed any potential prejudice arising from the admission of this evidence.
4. Whether the admission of the above evidence rendered the conviction unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The photograph and text messages were admitted without proper disclosure and gave the jury a prejudicial impression of the Appellant as having a violent history.
• The jury was not unambiguously directed to disregard the photograph, and the judge's directions failed to address the unfair prejudice adequately.
• The text messages should not have been admitted or used in cross-examination, as the Appellant’s references to caring for his family were limited and did not create a false impression requiring correction.
• The evidence was given disproportionate emphasis in the prosecution’s closing speech, overshadowing the circumstantial case.
• The combined effect of the photograph and text messages undermined the safety of the conviction by preventing a fair consideration of the prosecution’s case.

Respondent's (Prosecution's) Arguments

• The photograph and text messages were properly admitted to correct a false impression the Appellant gave of himself as a meek, devoted family man.
• The evidence was relevant to the Appellant’s character as presented in his own evidence and was used solely to address that impression, not to suggest a propensity for violence or involvement in the conspiracy.
• The judge’s directions to the jury were clear and adequate to mitigate any potential prejudice.
• The evidence formed only a minor part of the prosecution’s overall circumstantial case, which was strong and independent of the challenged material.
• The conviction is safe and should be upheld.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Clinton [1993] 1 WLR 1181	Standard of competence required of legal representatives in appeals.	The court noted no allegation of incompetence or failing by the Appellant's trial lawyers that would support an appeal on that basis.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the grounds of appeal focusing on the admission of the photograph and text messages. It found that the Appellant’s evidence sought to portray him as a meek, devoted family man seeking to leave crime behind. The challenged evidence was properly admitted to correct this impression, showing that the Appellant was capable of threatening behaviour inconsistent with the image he presented.

The court rejected the argument that the evidence was used to suggest a general propensity for violence or involvement in the conspiracy. The judge’s directions to the jury were clear that the previous conviction was only relevant to the Serious Crime Prevention Order and that the jury should disregard any character evidence unrelated to the charge.

The timing and manner of the cross-examination on the photograph and text messages were considered fair, particularly as defence counsel did not object after having time to reflect. Although it would have been preferable to serve a formal notice under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court found that such a notice would likely have been granted.

The court found no merit in the submission that the judge’s directions were inadequate or that the evidence rendered the conviction unsafe. The evidence admitted formed only a minor part of the prosecution’s case, which was supported by extensive circumstantial evidence including DNA, telephone data, vehicle associations, recovered weapons, and incriminating communications.

Even if the admission of the challenged material or the directions had been flawed, the court concluded it would not have made the conviction unsafe given the strength of the other evidence.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction on grounds 3 and 6.

The conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery is upheld as safe. The decision directly affects the parties by affirming the Appellant’s conviction and sentence. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling.