R v Waqar Ahmad

The Applicant and his three co-accused were jointly charged with affray. The trial commenced on 25 March 2024. The Applicant's application to sever his trial was refused. On 28 March 2024 (day 4 of the trial) the Applicant's then representatives withdrew from acting for him because of an irretrievable breakdown of their relationship with the Applicant.

The Judge ordered severance of the Applicant's case. The trial of the three co-accused continued, one was convicted and two were acquitted. The Applicant's trial then took place in December 2024 in the Crown Court at Isleworth, where the Applicant was convicted of affray. On 6 May 2025, before the same court, the Applicant was sentenced to a suspended sentence order of 7 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years with a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 20 days. He renews his application for leave to appeal against conviction following a refusal by the Single Judge.

On 2 April 2022, shortly before 2.00 pm, an altercation involving the four accused took place at First Choice Motors on Uxbridge Road. An argument developed between the co-accused, Grover and Choudery, which became violent. A woman and a man in a baseball cap were present. Choudery slapped Grover. Grover then attempted to pursue Choudery at walking pace but he was obstructed by a man in the baseball cap. When Grover reached Choudery he struck him. Grover and the co-accused Guruwer struck at the man in the baseball cap. The woman sought to intervene. Shortly thereafter the Applicant appeared on the scene and spoke to Guruwer. Choudery broke free from being restrained and struck Grover with a metal pole. The woman and the man in the baseball cap attempted to separate Grover and Choudery. Guruwer then struck Choudery multiple times. The woman and the man in the baseball cap tried to intervene.

The Applicant attempted to take the metal pole while Guruwer chased Choudery. The Applicant began to direct punches at Grover, which knocked him to the floor. He then continued to punch him on the floor. He then turned and punched Guruwer in the face causing him to fall to the floor. A bystander (Mr Grey) who witnessed the incident from the front of his house filmed it on his mobile phone and provided an independent account of the incident along with the footage he recorded. The incident was also captured on CCTV which was the key piece of evidence showing all parties acting aggressively and throwing punches.

In interview the accused each claimed self-defence and blamed the other side.

The prosecution case against the Applicant was that he punched Grover when he was on the floor and that these actions were not in self-defence. He had initially stood back from the incident and therefore had the opportunity to call the police instead of joining in.

The defence case was that the Applicant was acting in self-defence of himself and another (the woman who can be seen in the footage).

The Applicant gave evidence at his trial. He explained that he has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and an issue with anxiety.

At the material time he was working with Choudery selling cars. He knew Grover and Guruwer as he was a customer of theirs, having bought crisps and chocolate from them. He said that when he came back from a test drive with a customer he saw that his work colleagues were under attack. The customer he was with told him to go over and help his colleagues but the woman who was involved also asked him to help her and he tried to pull a man away from her.

The issue at trial was therefore whether the Applicant joined in a fight when he did not need to do so and whether his participation went beyond self-defence.

The Applicant's grounds of appeal are in summary:

The Applicant has lodged additional material in support of his grounds which largely relates to his ADHD. These include letters from his general practitioner and a Dr Baljit confirming his ADHD diagnosis and a letter from York Medical Practice in relation to waiting times for treatment which the Applicant says were unreasonable.

The Applicant produced a witness statement from Mr Richard Hart dated 12 February 2025. Mr Hart is a long-standing acquaintance of the Applicant and attended several pre-trial hearings and much of the trial alongside him. He explains that the Applicant’s solicitors were appointed following pre-trial discussions and that Communicourt funding was arranged to provide support for the Applicant trial during the trial in the form of an intermediary. Mr Hart says that the Applicant became concerned that his requests to his solicitor (Mr Sanjeev) were not being met and sought unsuccessfully to change solicitors shortly before trial. According to Mr Hart, the Applicant believed the trial was not fair and felt let down by his legal aid solicitor.

Mr Hart identifies three matters that he says the Applicant wished to be addressed: securing the attendance of a supportive witness; obtaining an ADHD specialist to assist the court in understanding his condition and meeting Communicourt before trial to understand their role. Mr Hart states that none of these occurred. He notes that the proposed witness was abroad and had not been contacted. No ADHD specialist was sought and that Communicourt's representative did not attend in person until the first day of trial. The Applicant, Mr Hart says, felt that their role was of limited assistance to him.

Mr Hart describes the Applicant's difficulties in organising his thoughts, repeating himself and interrupting which he attributes to ADHD. He considers that progress on the three identified matters would have made the trial fairer. He concludes that the Applicant has some justification for feeling let down by his solicitor and suggests that clearer communication at the outset would have enabled him to consider alternative steps.

In view of the complaints made about his trial representatives the Applicant waived privilege. The responses of his trial counsel (Mr Edward Seller) and solicitors (Kayders) are contained in documents dated 3 February 2025 and 27 January 2025. Both counsel and solicitors explained the background to their involvement and the difficulties that arose in representing the Applicant in advance of and during his trial. Kayders Solicitors were appointed on 18 October 2024 following a breakdown in communication and trust between Mr Ahmad and his previous solicitors. They immediately applied for prior authority and sought the assistance of Communicourt because the Applicant had informed them that he suffered from ADHD, although they advised repeatedly that ADHD was not of itself a defence but was potentially relevant to mitigation. Conferences were arranged but the Applicant frequently failed to attend and the intermediary assessment itself had to be rearranged. The solicitors provided him with documentation, liaised with the Liaison and Diversion team at court and attended hearings culminating in the court granting an intermediary to support him. There is a report from Communicourt following their instructions by Kayders Solicitors to prepare a specialist intermediary assessment of the Applicant's communications skills with a view to providing an intermediary service for his case. The report sets out a range of carefully considered measures to mitigate the Applicant's difficulties due to ADHD and to assist him in giving evidence if he chose to do so. Similar recommendations were made following an assessment by the liaison and diversion service and are set out in a letter from them dated 1 November 2024.

Trial counsel, Mr Edward Seller, was instructed comparatively late on 3 December 2024 and met the Applicant for the first time at trial. This was however in the context of the Applicant's previous representatives having withdrawn. Counsel describes significant difficulties arising from the Applicant's ADHD. He spoke continuously often tangentially or loudly, which made communication and taking instructions extremely challenging. The court was however made aware of the condition and the intermediary was present throughout. Counsel applied for the Applicant to give evidence in writing, which was to be read aloud in court. The Judge refused as this method was unsupported by the intermediary’s report and not been requested earlier.

Both counsel and his solicitors comment on the witness Ms Choudery whom the Applicant insisted should give evidence. The solicitors explain that they attempted to contact her, spoke to her father and established that she was abroad in the United Arab Emirates during the trial period. A CV link was impossible because of UAE restrictions. Counsel adds that he was unaware of her as a witness before trial. Since no statement had been provided to him he ultimately obtained one from the prosecution after it had been uploaded and then removed from the Digital Case System. He considered the statement poorly prepared but nevertheless pursued the Applicant's instructions. When it transpired the witness could not attend he applied, sequentially, for an adjournment, for remote evidence and for admission of the statement as evidence. Each application was refused. These were matters of case management for the Trial Judge, who was much better placed than this Court to make an assessment of the merits of the applications. The Applicant does not in fact seek to impugn these decisions by the Judge.

Counsel recalls a number of behavioural difficulties in court including occasions where the Applicant shouted to such an extent that counsel warned he might have to withdraw. Both counsel and solicitors nonetheless say that they acted throughout in the Applicant's best interests. The thrust of the Applicant's response to these observations is that they failed to deal with his ADHD by instructing those with relevant expertise.

The Judge made specific reference to the Applicant's ADHD in the course of his summing-up, and reminded the jury that the Applicant's case was that he had not taken his ADHD medication at the time of his police interview. The Judge gave an uncontroversial direction to the jury about the use of an intermediary. When reminding the jury of the Applicant's evidence, he referred expressly to the fact that the Applicant had ADHD and that this could lead to problems with short-term memory and anxiety. There is nothing, in our view, which can be criticised in the summing-up.

It is also clear from the summing-up that the Applicant gave cogent evidence in which he set out his case that he had been acting in self-defence. He gave an explanation as to why he had been involved in the fight. He was plainly able to deal with questions posed in cross-examination. The Judge properly and fully reminded the jury of this evidence.

The impact of the Applicant's ADHD on his ability to follow proceedings and participate was properly considered and was the subject of advanced reports and assessments. The Applicant had, unusually, the assistance of an intermediary through the entire trial. We see nothing to indicate that he was placed at a disadvantage because of his disorder. Importantly the evidence both for and against him was essentially contained in the CCTV and mobile phone footage which covers the entirety of the incident which the prosecution relied on as constituting the offence. It is clear that both counsel and solicitors encountered difficulties in their interaction with the Applicant which may in part be attributed to his ADHD but there is nothing in our view to suggest that they fell short of their professional obligations to the Applicant in the preparation for and conduct of the trial. The fact that the Applicant would require measures to assist him at court was recognised and provided for. His case that he was defending himself and another was presented to the jury in accordance with his instructions supported by the evidence which he gave at court.

The question before this Court is whether it is arguable that his conviction was unsafe. For the reasons we have set out it is, in our view, not arguable and we therefore refuse the application for leave.