Forid Uddin Farhad & Shibbir Ahmed [2019] EWCA Crim 1129

The applicant, Farhad, sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence having been convicted of conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life, two charges of wounding with intent to cause GBH and two of attempting to wound with intent to cause GBH. He was sentenced to an extended sentence of 15 years comprising a custodial element of 12 years. Ahmed was granted leave to appeal against sentence having been similarly convicted and sentenced to an extended sentence of 21 years comprising a custodial term of 18 years.

A co-accused received an extended sentence of 17 years and did not appeal.

The applicant and appellant approached a group of males in a contained play area outside some flats. A single shot was fired from a sawn-off shotgun towards the four complainants at short range and all were injured, three requiring hospital treatment. The prosecution case was that the three co-accused, together with one who died prior to trial, conspired together to possess the firearm with intent to endanger life. The appellant and the applicant arrived in the taxi together followed by the co-accused and deceased. Ahmed fired the gun and fled the scene with Farhad, Ahmed also pointed the shotgun at a member of the public who challenged them.

Farhad argued that the trial judge erred in admitting his previous convictions as bad character and in admitting evidence of a covert recording of one side of a phone call between him and the deceased, also as bad character evidence.

In his evidence Farhad had said he was a young man, living at home with his mother who he cared for and he had now got himself a job, he also said in cross examination he was “just a bony kid, how could I have helped?”. The judge concluded he had given a false impression of himself and admitted the two convictions for violence. The Court agreed with the conclusion of the single judge that the evidence taken as a whole was giving a false impression.

As to the covert recording the judge found that a jury could come to the conclusion that the deceased was discussing with the applicant a particular firearm that they both knew about, as such it could amount to misconduct and reprehensible behaviour. The single judge, and the Court agreed, said that the judge was correct not to deal with the evidence on the basis of hearsay. The conversation between the applicant and the deceased about a gun was plainly admissible in relation to the issues the jury had to decide. The applications for leave to appeal conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Ahmed argued that his sentence was too long and there was disparity with the co-accused, and that an extended sentence was wrong.

Held: the judge was right to impose an extended sentence, but length and disparity remained to be considered.

Ahmed was “one of the prime movers behind the conspiracy”, he armed himself and discharged the shotgun, he also had convictions for possessing offensive weapons and for violence. The custodial sentence was not manifestly excessive but within the range of sentenced the judge could reasonably pass, nor was there “such disparity between the sentences passed on each of these defendants as to merit interfering with the sentence in relation to Mr Ahmed”.