R v Nasir Al-Shumari: Court of Appeal upholds murder conviction despite bad character evidence challenge

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against conviction in a significant ruling concerning the admissibility of bad character evidence between co-defendants. In R v Nasir Al-Shumari [2025] EWCA Crim 1317, Lord Justice Holgate delivered the judgement rejecting the appellant's challenge to his murder and wounding convictions.

The case arose from a violent confrontation at Manchester's Piccadilly Basin on 16 August 2023, resulting in the death of Ahmed Alsrhan and serious injury to Sami Alhaj. The appellant, aged 17 at the time, was convicted of murder under count 1 and wounding with intent under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 under count 3. He received detention at His Majesty's pleasure with a minimum term of 13 years and 239 days.

The central issue on appeal concerned the trial judge's decision to admit bad character evidence under section 101(1)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Co-defendant Hussein Muhalhal (D2) successfully applied to introduce evidence that Al-Shumari had previously carried an eight-inch breadknife to school in October 2020 for "self-protection" and had exchanged Instagram messages in November 2023 offering to help someone obtain a knife.

This evidence emerged after D2 gave testimony that Al-Shumari had been fighting with the deceased, whilst Al-Shumari's counsel cross-examined D2 suggesting he was falsely blaming the youngest defendants to cover his own involvement. The prosecution's case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony that "the kid" - identified as Al-Shumari - possessed a chrome flick knife during the incident.

The Court of Appeal found that Mr Justice Pepperall had correctly applied the substantial probative value test. The judgement emphasised that the bad character evidence was capable of demonstrating a propensity to carry knives, directly relevant to the crucial issue between co-defendants: which of them carried the murder weapon.

Significantly, the trial judge had directed the jury to consider this evidence only when evaluating the cases of co-defendants who suggested Al-Shumari alone was responsible, explicitly instructing them to disregard it when considering the prosecution's case against him. The Court of Appeal held these directions were clear and sufficient, noting that the prosecution had not sought to rely on this material.

The judgement distinguished this case from R v Braithwaite [2010] EWCA Crim 1082, where inadequate CRIS reports lacking proper identification were deemed inadmissible. Here, the evidence included confiscation of a knife by a named teacher, the appellant's own admission about carrying it for self-defence, and verifiable Instagram messages.

The Court acknowledged that whilst it would have been preferable for the trial judge to direct the jury to disregard an unproven allegation about threats to stab another pupil, this omission did not render the conviction unsafe. The limited scope and duration of the bad character cross-examination, combined with the clear judicial directions, ensured the trial's fairness.

This ruling reinforces that substantial probative value assessments remain matters of judicial discretion, with appellate courts intervening only where decisions are plainly wrong or Wednesbury unreasonable. The case demonstrates how bad character evidence can properly be deployed between co-defendants whilst maintaining appropriate safeguards through careful jury directions.