R v Muhammed Gure

The Applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against conviction for three counts of causing death by dangerous driving, causing death by driving whilst disqualified, and causing death by driving whilst uninsured. He renews his application following refusal by the single judge.

In the early hours of 1 January 2021 there was a fatal collision outside Earls Court tube station. The victim of the collision was Paul Campbell, aged 50 years. He was crossing the road when he was hit by a VW Golf which had been hired from Zipcar the previous night from an account which belonged to Haroon Aria, who was subsequently arrested.

In a police interview Haroon Aria said that the Applicant had used his Zipcar account to hire the vehicle and was the driver of the car. He was at this point willing to provide a witness statement to the prosecution in this regard.

The issue for the jury at the Applicant's trial was whether they could be sure that the Applicant was the driver of the vehicle. The prosecution case was that he was the driver. The Applicant accepted that he was in the car, but denied driving.

Haroon Aria had meanwhile been charged with perverting the course of justice in relation to lies told to the police and to Zipcar about the Golf being stolen. He pleaded guilty. He subsequently refused to co-operate with the police and, in particular, to provide a witness statement confirming what he had said in his police interview in relation to the Applicant driving the car. The prosecution therefore obtained a witness summons for his attendance at trial, but Haroon Aria continued to refuse or failed to attend court. Eventually, he signed a witness statement saying in essence that he could not remember anything of the events that had given rise to the charges against the Applicant.

Haroon Aria gave evidence via a link from Feltham Prison. During the course of his evidence he answered questions in line with his witness statement, namely that he could not remember anything. Counsel for the prosecution applied to treat him as a hostile witness. Counsel for the defence objected. The judge ruled that Haroon Aria was hostile to the prosecution and that the prosecution were entitled to cross-examine him on the basis of a previous inconsistent statement, namely the answers he gave in his police interview.

The proposed ground of appeal is that the judge wrongly admitted the evidence of Haroon Aria through the use of the provisions in relation to hostile witnesses.

"The judge was entitled to treat Mr Aria as a hostile witness, for the reasons which he gave in his careful, clear ruling. Having done so, the prosecution were entitled to put Mr Aria's previous inconsistent statements, made in his police interview, to him and (applying section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ) to invite the jury to treat these statements as true. Your counsel was able to ask Mr Aria questions about what he had said in interview, and why he said it, directly challenging the reliability and accuracy of what he told police. This was not a case where a previous statement of an absent witness has been admitted under the hearsay provisions without the defence being able to challenge it.

We agree with the single judge. The trial judge dealt with the issues with meticulous care and skill. It is not arguable that the conviction is unsafe.

Accordingly, the renewed application for leave to appeal is refused.