Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves Sahail Ahmed, convicted of attempted fraud and wilful fire-raising following a 2020 fire at his Glasgow shop. CCTV footage showed Kasim Ahmed purchasing petrol at an Asda station before returning to the shop, where multiple seats of fire were identified. The fire occurred on 16 May 2020, with Sahail and his brothers Kasim and Adum present. Sahail paid an insurance premium the day after the fire to initiate a claim. Fire investigators confirmed the blaze was deliberate, with petrol detected as an accelerant. Adum Ahmed was acquitted, while Kasim initially denied involvement but later swore an affidavit taking sole responsibility, though his testimony contained inconsistencies.
Issues
- Fire investigators confirmed petrol was used as an accelerant, with multiple unconnected fire seats. Kasim's affidavit detailed petrol being poured in various areas, but his court testimony claimed he only poured petrol in the office. This inconsistency left unanswered who caused the other fire seats, with Kasim denying involvement and offering unproven explanations like fireworks or alcohol.
- The court evaluated if Kasim's new evidence (not heard at trial) met the legal criteria under section 106(3)(a) of the 1995 Act. The Crown conceded there was a reasonable explanation for its non-disclosure, but the court found the evidence lacked credibility and significance to overturn the conviction. The appeal was refused as no miscarriage of justice occurred.
- The court assessed whether Kasim Ahmed's evidence was credible and reliable, noting discrepancies in his accounts and conflicts with other evidence. His affidavit claimed sole responsibility for the fire, but his court testimony contradicted this, failing to explain inconsistencies in timing and petrol use. The court concluded his evidence was not trustworthy for a reasonable jury.
- Kasim Ahmed's affidavit stated the brothers arrived at the shop at 5:00pm, but CCTV evidence showed the appellant arrived at 3:35pm. The court found this discrepancy unexplained and suggested Kasim attempted to minimize the appellant's presence. The early shutter closure by the appellant also raised questions about concealment.
Holdings
The court held that Kasim Ahmed's evidence was not capable of being regarded as credible and reliable by a reasonable jury, and concluded there had been no miscarriage of justice. The appeal was refused.
Remedies
The appeal against conviction was refused by the High Court of Justiciary. The court determined that the new evidence from Kasim Ahmed was not credible or reliable enough to constitute a miscarriage of justice.
Legal Principles
The court applied the test for appeals under section 106(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995, requiring fresh evidence to be credible, reliable, and of sufficient significance to likely alter the jury's verdict. This includes assessing whether the evidence would have been material to a critical issue at trial and whether the original jury could not have returned its verdict if the evidence had been heard. The principles were guided by precedents in Megrahi v HMA and Fraser v HMA, emphasizing the need for the new evidence to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
Precedent Name
- Fraser v HMA
- Megrahi v HMA
Cited Statute
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995
Judge Name
- Lady Wise
- Lord Matthews
- Lord Boyd of Duncansby
Passage Text
- He thereafter confessed that he was responsible for setting the premises on fire. He confirmed that he purchased petrol from the local petrol pump and thereafter poured petrol within the back area of the shop.
- Having heard the evidence of Kasim Ahmed and considered it in the context of the strong circumstantial case against the appellant we are satisfied that his evidence is not capable of being regarded as credible and reliable by a reasonable jury.
- It is clear from the CCTV evidence that the appellant arrived at the shop at 3.35pm and that Adum was already there. This was almost 1½ hours before close of business.