Mohammed Abboud v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2016] HCJAC 124

Note of appeal against conviction:- The appellant was convicted after trial of a charge of murder. The appellant appealed on the grounds of alleged misdirections by the trial judge. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the use by the trial judge of the word “assassin” in providing an example of a deliberate intention to kill along with reference to the terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 September 2015, showed a lack of impartiality on the part of the trial judge and led to an unfair trial. This was particularly so, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant, in light of the fact that the suspected ringleader in the terrorist attacks was called Abdelhamid Abaaoud a name similar to that of the appellant who was a 57 year old bearded man of Iraqi extraction, and a trial which took place shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the examples given by the trial judge were suggestive of bias and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Here the court refused the appeal. The court considered that it was appropriate for judges to provide illustrative examples to a jury in relation to highlighting the differences between murder resulting from a wickedly deliberate intention to kill and murder resulting from wicked recklessness. The court did not consider that the example provided by the trial judge reflected unfavourably on the appellant nor was it an example of a situation where it could be said that the judge’s directions impugned the credibility of the appellant. The court considered that the words used by the trial judge were not such that they were likely to create in the minds of reasonable individuals the suspicion that the trial judge might not be impartial. The court observed that the trial judge gave clear directions to the jury to base their verdict solely on the evidence and not to speculate and to put aside any feelings of prejudice, sympathy or revulsion which they might have and to give a true verdict according to the evidence in accordance with the oath or affirmation which they took at the start of the trial.