Mahmoud [2019] EWCA Crim 667

The appellant was convicted of murder following trial where he ran a cut-throat defence. He was assisted by an intermediary throughout the trial and the appeal was based on two grounds relating to that. The first ground related to a challenge advanced by co-accused’s counsel on the appellant’s need for an intermediary, the second to the judge’s directions on the use of an intermediary in light of that challenge.

During his cross examination of the appellant counsel for the co-accused repeatedly breached the ground rules set by asking lengthy, leading or tagged questions prompting intervention from the intermediary. The appellant’s counsel expressed his concerns about the approach as in his questioning co-accused’s counsel appeared to challenge the need for an intermediary. The judge accepted that, in light of those questions, that a further direction about the use of an intermediary was required.

Held: comments of counsel for the co-accused were considered and were mild in comparison to some that are made during a cut-throat defence and peripheral to the main issues in the case. The judge corrected any wrong impression in his clear and robust directions during his summing-up. Accepting that counsel crossed a line the Court was satisfied that, in doing so, he did not cause the appellant the kind of prejudice that would call into question the safety of the conviction. The case against the appellant was a powerful one. The appeal was dismissed.