The Case of Nasir Al-Shumari: A Legal Crossroads

A: Let's dive deep into R v Nasir Al-Shumari [2025] EWCA Crim 1317, focusing on when bad character evidence between co-defendants is admissible. Holgate LJ emphasized the substantial probative value required under Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.101(1)(e). The courts aren’t interested in mudslinging without relevance.

B: So, it’s not just a matter of 'he said, she said'? There must be a significant issue at play, like determining who brought and used the knife in this case?

A: Exactly. The central question was: between D2 and the appellant, who possessed and used the chrome flick knife? Under CJA 2003 s.109(1), the judge considered the admissibility of bad character evidence, assuming it was true. But this assumption alone doesn't guarantee admissibility; the evidence must be crucial to the issue.

B: The 'assume it's true' part—doesn't that allow potentially dubious evidence? CRIS reports need careful handling, right? Like in R v Braithwaite, where weak claims were dismissed?

A: Exactly. Braithwaite clarified that unproven, vague allegations in CRIS reports aren't substantial evidence. Here, the judge relied on more concrete evidence: a confiscated knife, a direct threat, and Instagram messages about buying knives—credible sources.

B: And the timing of the evidence application? CrimPR 2020 r.21.4(4) requires it to be as soon as 'reasonably practicable.' Did the delay affect the case's fairness?

A: The judge noted the delay wasn't ideal, but it didn't prejudice the appellant. The rule gives courts discretion, especially if late evidence relates to a central issue.

B: Was there concern about jury confusion with using bad character evidence against one defendant but not generally?

A: Yes, and that's why the judge’s bifurcated directions were key, as seen in R v Robinson. The jury was instructed to consider the evidence only in the context of a co-defendant’s accusation, not the main prosecution. It's complex, but appellate courts trust juries to handle it.

B: So, ultimately, the appeal was dismissed because the evidence admission and jury instructions didn't render the conviction unsafe?

A: Precisely. The courts emphasized the high bar for challenging admissibility decisions—citing cases like Musone and Phillips. Here, despite timing concerns and complex directions, Holgate LJ found nothing to undermine the trial's fairness or the conviction's safety.