Muazam Ali Shah v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2015] HCJAC 99

Note of appeal against conviction:- On 1 September 2011, at Glasgow High Court, the appellant was convicted after trial of three charges:- (1) robbery and murder; (2) attempting to defeat the ends of justice; and (3) a contravention of section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, namely being in possession of heroin. The deceased was a drug dealer who died as a result of a brutal and violent murderous assault. The issue at the trial was whether it was the appellant who was the perpetrator. The appellant appealed against his conviction. During the course of the trial evidence was led by the Crown of three statements made by the appellant at different stages of the investigation. It was accepted on the part of the Crown that all three were mixed statements as they all contained material upon which the Crown could rely in support of their case. The trial judge directed the jury in relation to the mixed statements, however, he sought to correct those directions after the Advocate depute raised concerns in relation to how the trial judge had initially directed them on the mixed statements. The trial judge initially directed the jury that what was said by the appellant was not hearsay and that the content of the statements were not evidence of the truth of what he had said at the time, but only of the fact that he had made the statements and of the and of his reaction to the allegations when they were put to him. However, after being addressed by the trial Advocate depute the trial judge redirected the jury on how to deal with the mixed statements. At the appeal hearing it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the manner in which the trial judge had dealt with the mixed statements was a material misdirection and had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. On behalf of the Crown it was submitted that the charge, when read as a whole, including the corrections that had been given, there was no misdirection, and even if there was considered to be a misdirection it did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Here the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction in respect of all three charges. The court noted that significantly there was no reference in the trial judge’s directions in relation to four important areas of evidence to the appellant’s repeated explicit denial of responsibility for the murder and in relation to other aspects of the defence case the judge’s directions in relation to the mixed statements were deficient.