Tamiz, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 200 (15 February 2024)

Tamiz, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 200 (15 February 2024)

The trial judge did not err in excluding the proposed bad character evidence, as it lacked substantial probative value and was largely irrelevant to the issues in the case. The directions to the jury on background disputes and the use of evidence across counts were fair, balanced, and in accordance with established legal principles. There was no arguable ground that rendered the convictions unsafe.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 200
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant/defendant: Sohila Tamiz; Applicant/defendant: Pedram Tamiz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Conviction Before the Full Court of Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal against conviction refused.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Unlawful Eviction, Bad Character Evidence, Jury Directions, Appeals Procedure
Criminal Law Landlord and Tenant Law Harassment Unlawful Eviction Bad Character Evidence Jury Directions Appeals Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Sohila Tamiz

Applicant/defendant

Pedram Tamiz

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Conviction Before the Full Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit bad character evidence relating to prosecution witnesses
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on background disputes and cross-admissibility of evidence were fair and lawful
  3. 3 Whether the convictions are unsafe due to alleged judicial errors in evidential rulings and jury directions

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in excluding the proposed bad character evidence, as it lacked substantial probative value and was largely irrelevant to the issues in the case. The directions to the jury on background disputes and the use of evidence across counts were fair, balanced, and in accordance with established legal principles. There was no arguable ground that rendered the convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal against conviction refused.

Orders

  • Renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • No loss of time orders made, but applicants warned of the risk under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.