Tuesday Law Report: Challenge depended on showing significant fault

16 November 1999

Regina v Ullah

Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (Lord Justice Rose, Vice-President, Mr Justice Brian Smedley and Mr Justice Penry-Davey) 14 October 1999

ONLY SIGNIFICANT fault on the part of trial counsel or solicitors could found a challenge, based on their conduct, to the safety of the jury's verdict in a criminal trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of Naveed Ullah against his conviction of indecent assault on a female.

After the complainant had given evidence at the the appellant's trial, the defence had obtained tape recordings of telephone conversations between the complainant and other witnesses who were still to give evidence, which could have affected the jury's view of the truth of the complainant's evidence. The appellant's counsel decided not to use the tape recordings.

The appellant was convicted, and appealed against his conviction on the ground that trial counsel's failure to rely on the tape recordings had rendered the conviction unsafe.

Patrick Curran QC and John Maxwell (who did not appear below) (Tom Burke & Co, Manchester); Howard Baisden (Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.

Lord Justice Rose VP said that counsel's initial submission on behalf of the appellant had been that, even in a case where trial counsel's conduct was criticised, the first and sole question to be addressed on appeal was whether the conviction was to be regarded as unsafe. He had relied on the judgment in R v Kamar (unreported, 31 March 1999).

That case did not, however, afford sustenance for that submission. It was an unusual case in which defence counsel had admitted that he had been in error in not seeking a ruling from the trial judge on the defendant's character and in failing to invite the judge to give a good character direction. Prosecuting counsel, on the appeal, had conceded that the absence of such a direction rendered the verdict unsafe, and the court had, accordingly, quashed the conviction.

Further, the court could not accept the accuracy of a passage in Archbold (1999 edition) at paragraph 7-82, which stated:

The issue for the Court of Appeal is whether or not the conviction is safe, not whether counsel was competent, incompetent, or flagrantly incompetent: see R v Clinton (ante) in which the court concluded that "it is probably less helpful to approach the problem via the somewhat semantic exercise of trying to assess the qualitative value of counsel's alleged ineptitude, but rather to seek to assess its effect on the trial and the verdict according to the terms of the subsection

The ultimate issue for the Court of Appeal was, of course, whether the conviction was safe. It was to be noticed, however, that the the citation from Clinton included a reference to counsel's "ineptitude" which, it seemed, was a necessary prerequisite to any challenge to the safety of a conviction based on on counsels' conduct.

Counsel for the appellant had accepted that, where counsel's conduct at trial was criticised, it was necessary to assess the question whether that conduct had given rise to a want of safety in the conviction. In the light of the authorities before and after the amendment by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 of section 2 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, that concession had been rightly and properly made.

Counsel for the appellant had formulated the test in relation to counsel's conduct as follows: was the decision or action of counsel based on such fundamentally flawed reasons that it might properly be regarded by the Court of Appeal as Wednesbury unreasonable?

For present purposes, it seemed to the court that, whatever the precise language which was used to describe it, counsel was correct in saying that it was only significant fault on the part of trial counsel, or indeed solicitors, which could found a challenge to the safety of a jury's verdict. It might be, although the court expressed no final and concluded view on that aspect of the case, that it was a proper and convenient approach to apply a Wednesbury test to the decision complained of, i.e. whether it was one which no reasonable counsel or solicitor could have reached.

In the present case, the only possible conclusion was that trial counsel had not behaved sensibly and reasonably.

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
Independent Dating
and  

By clicking 'Search' you
are agreeing to our
Terms of Use.

iJobs Job Widget
iJobs People

Recruitment Genius: Management Trainer

£30000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Exciting career opportunity to join East...

Recruitment Genius: Senior Scientist / Research Assistant

£18000 - £28000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: An ambitious start-up company b...

Reach Volunteering: Chair of Trustees

VOLUNTARY ONLY - EXPENSES REIMBURSED: Reach Volunteering: Do you love the Engl...

Day In a Page

Homeless Veterans Christmas Appeal: Drifting and forgotten - turning lives around for ex-soldiers

Homeless Veterans Christmas Appeal: Turning lives around for ex-soldiers

Our partner charities help veterans on the brink – and get them back on their feet
Tove Jansson's Moominland: What was the inspiration for Finland's most famous family?

Escape to Moominland

What was the inspiration for Finland's most famous family?
Nightclubbing with Richard Young: The story behind his latest book of celebrity photographs

24-Hour party person

Photographer Richard Young has been snapping celebrities at play for 40 years. As his latest book is released, he reveals that it wasn’t all fun and games
Michelle Obama's school dinners: America’s children have a message for the First Lady

A taste for rebellion

US children have started an online protest against Michelle Obama’s drive for healthy school meals by posting photos of their lunches
Colouring books for adults: How the French are going crazy for Crayolas

Colouring books for adults

How the French are going crazy for Crayolas
Jack Thorne's play 'Hope': What would you do as a local politician faced with an impossible choice of cuts?

What would you do as a local politician faced with an impossible choice of cuts?

Playwright Jack Thorne's latest work 'Hope' poses the question to audiences
Ed Harcourt on Romeo Beckham and life as a court composer at Burberry

Call me Ed Mozart

Paloma Faith, Lana del Ray... Romeo Beckham. Ed Harcourt has proved that he can write for them all. But it took a personal crisis to turn him from indie star to writer-for-hire
10 best stocking fillers for foodies

Festive treats: 10 best stocking fillers for foodies

From boozy milk to wasabi, give the food-lover in your life some extra-special, unusual treats to wake up to on Christmas morning
'I have an age of attraction that starts as low as four': How do you deal with a paedophile who has never committed a crime?

'I am a paedophile'

Is our approach to sex offenders helping to create more victims?
How bad do you have to be to lose a Home Office contract?

How bad do you have to be to lose a Home Office contract?

Serco given Yarl’s Wood immigration contract despite ‘vast failings’
Green Party on the march in Bristol: From a lost deposit to victory

From a lost deposit to victory

Green Party on the march in Bristol
Putting the grot right into Santa's grotto

Winter blunderlands

Putting the grot into grotto
'It just came to us, why not do it naked?' London's first nude free runner captured in breathtaking images across capital

'It just came to us, why not do it naked?'

London's first nude free runner captured in breathtaking images across capital
In a world of Saudi bullying, right-wing Israeli ministers and the twilight of Obama, Iran is looking like a possible policeman of the Gulf

Iran is shifting from pariah to possible future policeman of the Gulf

Robert Fisk on our crisis with Iran
The young are the new poor: A third of young people pushed into poverty

The young are the new poor

Sharp increase in the number of under-25s living in poverty