Ahmad, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant and three co-accused were jointly charged with affray following an altercation on 2 April 2022 at premises on [Number] Main Street in The City. The trial began on 25 March 2024. An initial application to sever was refused; on day four of the trial the Appellant's then representatives withdrew due to an irretrievable breakdown in their relationship with him. The trial judge later ordered severance. The co-accused were tried first (one convicted, two acquitted). The Appellant was tried separately in December 2024 at the Crown Court in The City and was convicted of affray. On 6 May 2025 the Appellant was sentenced to a suspended sentence order of seven months' imprisonment suspended for two years with a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 20 days. The Appellant renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by the Single Judge.

The incident was captured on CCTV and by a bystander’s mobile phone. The prosecution relied principally on the footage and the bystander’s account. The Appellant gave evidence at trial, stating he has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and anxiety, and pleaded self-defence (including defence of another). The core factual dispute at trial was whether the Appellant joined and continued a fight beyond what was necessary for self-defence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it is arguable that the Appellant's conviction is unsafe.
2. Whether the Appellant was denied a fair trial due to failures to address his diagnosed ADHD (including alleged failure to secure an ADHD specialist and alleged ineffective intermediary support).
3. Whether trial representatives acted ineffectively or breached professional obligations in preparation for and during the trial.
4. Whether evidential or procedural decisions (refusal of adjournment, refusal to allow remote evidence or admission of a statement) rendered the trial unfair.
5. Allegations of denial of medication in custody, wrongful arrest, and discrimination due to hidden disabilities impacting fairness of proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant's solicitor failed to obtain an ADHD specialist before and at trial, resulting in an unfair trial due to his neurodiversity.
• The intermediary was ineffective and could not speak on his behalf.
• The Appellant was denied medication while in police custody and was wrongly arrested.
• A supportive witness (the woman seen in the footage) was not called to give evidence for the defence.
• His solicitors did not assist adequately with the appeal process.
• The Appellant was discriminated against because of hidden disabilities and the prosecution exploited his vulnerabilities.

Respondent's Arguments (Prosecution / Trial Representatives)

• The prosecution's case relied on CCTV and mobile-phone footage showing the Appellant acting aggressively and punching another when that person was on the floor; the prosecution rejected self-defence.
• The trial solicitors (Company A) and trial counsel (Attorney Seller) explained they arranged Communicourt funding (Company B), intermediary assessment, liaison with The Team, and attempted to secure relevant assistance; they faced attendance and communication difficulties with the Appellant.
• Company A and Attorney Seller contended they acted in the Appellant's best interests, made case management applications to the trial judge regarding the absent witness and evidence, and complied with professional obligations despite challenges arising from the Appellant’s ADHD-related behaviour.
• The intermediary and liaison arrangements were put in place; requests such as evidence in writing were refused by the trial judge on appropriate grounds.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the material evidence and procedural history and proceeded as follows:

1. Identified the central evidential basis: CCTV footage and a bystander’s mobile recording provided comprehensive, independent visual evidence of the incident and the parties' actions.
2. Considered the Appellant's medical evidence and supporting material concerning ADHD (medical letters, waiting-time material) and an acquaintance’s witness statement describing communication difficulties attributed to ADHD.
3. Reviewed the responses of the Appellant's trial counsel (Attorney Seller) and Company A, including their account of steps taken: late instruction of counsel, applications for intermediary support, liaison with The Team, arranging a Communicourt assessment (Company B), and attempts to contact the proposed defence witness who was abroad.
4. Assessed how the trial judge managed the case: the judge referenced the Appellant's ADHD in the summing-up, gave directions on the intermediary, and reminded the jury of the Appellant's evidence and the limits of any medication issue; the judge refused the written-evidence application because it lacked intermediary support and was not sought earlier.
5. Found that the Appellant gave cogent evidence, handled cross-examination, and that his case of self-defence (and defence of another) was presented to the jury in accordance with his instructions and supported by his oral evidence.
6. Concluded that the impact of ADHD had been properly considered and mitigated: advanced reports and assessments existed, an intermediary assisted throughout, and accommodations recommended by assessments were implemented to a material extent.
7. Examined allegations of ineffective representation and procedural unfairness and found that, while communications and behavioural difficulties occurred (partly attributable to ADHD), there was no indication that counsel or solicitors fell short of professional obligations in preparation for or conduct of the trial.
8. Determined that, given the robust audiovisual evidence and the procedural safeguards applied, it was not arguable that the conviction was unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.

Implications: The refusal leaves the Appellant's conviction and sentence intact; the court found no arguable basis that the conviction was unsafe and did not identify a need to set new legal precedent. The decision's direct effect is to deny the Appellant further review on the grounds presented.