Mohammed, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

Judge Dingemans delivered this appellate opinion concerning an appeal by the Appellant against convictions entered at trial in the Crown Court in The City. On 21 January 2025 a jury convicted the Appellant, then aged 39, of two counts of conspiring to supply a Class A controlled drug (Count 1: cocaine; Count 2: heroin). On 12 March 2025 the Appellant was sentenced to 7 years 5 months' imprisonment on Count 2, with a concurrent sentence of 4 years on Count 1. The Appellant had been subject to a qualifying curfew of over 1000 days after arrest and before sentence.

The underlying events involved a violent machete attack on 22 May 2021 at an address in The City (referred to in the trial material as [Number] Main Street). Local CCTV showed a group of men leaving the property; police investigation revealed parts of the house were used to receive, adulterate and package drugs. Several co-defendants pleaded guilty to roles in the conspiracy and their pleas formed part of the prosecution case. The prosecution's case against the Appellant relied on CCTV and phone evidence placing him at or near the property on multiple occasions, his observed interactions with co-defendants, hire/purchase records for vehicles appearing on footage, and cash found at his property. The Appellant did not give live evidence at trial, relying instead on a prepared police interview denying involvement and otherwise largely answering "no comment." The trial had experienced multiple previous attempts and delays for various reasons (COVID, inappropriate prosecuting comments, a prior jury deadlock, logistical issues).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in his response to a jury note requesting copies/of hearing of the defence closing speech(s), and if that response rendered the Appellant's convictions unsafe.
2. Whether, having refused to provide copies of closing speeches, the judge was obliged to remind the jury of the main points of the Appellant's closing speech given the lapse of time between closing speech and the jury note.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Greenhalgh)

• The judge was correct to refuse to provide the speech text but, once the question was raised, should have given the jury a reminder of the main topics/headlines of the Appellant's closing speech because the speech had been delivered some weeks earlier and the jury may have forgotten key submissions through no fault of the Appellant.
• The judge's terse answer and the absence of a reminder produced a discernible unfairness making the convictions unsafe.

Prosecution's Arguments (Attorney Atkins and Attorney Cullen)

• The judge did not err. Closing speeches are not evidence and the judge was correct to refuse to provide or read them to the jury.
• If the judge were to remind the jury of submissions, he would need to consider doing so for all speeches (including the prosecution's). The judge properly informed the jury he could remind them of evidence if required.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the jury note sent on the seventh day of deliberations requesting copies/hearing of defence closing speeches. It accepted that closing speeches are submissions and not evidence and therefore the jury were not entitled to copies of those speeches. The court noted the judge (Judge Kershaw) explicitly told the jury that he could remind them about the evidence, implicitly indicating that if they required parts of the evidence to be read back they could ask for that.

The court acknowledged that some judges might, in the circumstances, give a very brief reminder of essential points of a defence speech, but held there was no duty on the trial judge to do so. The court relied on three factors in concluding the convictions were safe: (1) the jury had requested and received reminders of evidence during their deliberations when necessary; (2) the judge's answer expressly permitted reminders of evidence; and (3) the judge had already given a fair summing-up that included a detailed summary of the Appellant's case and the points made by Attorney Greenhalgh on his behalf.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED — The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Direct effect: the Appellant's convictions and sentences as imposed at trial remain upheld. The opinion concluded there was no basis to regard the verdicts as unsafe and did not establish a requirement that judges must summarise defence closing speeches when a jury requests them; it therefore did not purport to create a new general rule of law.