{"id":658737,"date":"2026-04-23T12:06:21","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:06:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T12:06:21","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:06:21","slug":"rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\/","title":{"rendered":"REX v AMRIK SINGH BACHRA"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

LORD JUSTICE SINGH: 1 This is a\u00a0renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. 2 On 12\u00a0January\u00a02022 in the\u00a0Crown Court at Aylesbury the\u00a0applicant (then aged 24) was convicted of Counts\u00a01 to 3 on the indictment. Counts\u00a01 to 2 were possessing a\u00a0controlled drug of Class A with intent contrary to s.5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Count\u00a03 was possessing a controlled drug of Class B with intent contrary to the\u00a0same provision. 3 On 2\u00a0February\u00a02022 the\u00a0applicant was sentenced by HHJ\u00a0Payne to a\u00a0sentence of three\u00a0years and six\u00a0months' imprisonment on the\u00a0first two counts and a\u00a0concurrent six months' imprisonment sentence on Count 3. That made a\u00a0total sentence of three years and six months. Other appropriate orders were made. 4 The\u00a0facts can be summarised for present purposes as follows. On 21\u00a0August\u00a02018 police officers noticed a\u00a0black BMW being driven at speed along Mansion Lane in Iver. They followed the\u00a0vehicle and found that it had been parked in a\u00a0nearby country lane. The\u00a0driver had decamped from the\u00a0vehicle and was running away. Two officers pursued him on foot, whilst the\u00a0third officer stayed with the vehicle. 5 The\u00a0driver, who was later identified as the\u00a0applicant, was caught, arrested and detained whilst the\u00a0officers searched the vehicle. Inside the\u00a0driver's door they found nine cling film wraps containing a\u00a0white powder and re-sealable bags which contained white and brown powder. In the\u00a0central console of the vehicle they found two bags. They also found some re-sealable bags in the\u00a0door, a\u00a0black Nokia mobile phone on the driver's seat, a\u00a0black Nokia mobile phone in the\u00a0driver's door and a\u00a0white iPhone. The\u00a0various substances were analysed and found to contain the\u00a0following: (1) Nine clear cling film wraps containing 2.6\u00a0grams of heroin. (2) Re-sealable plastic bags containing 1.18\u00a0grams of cocaine. (3) Two bags containing cannabis and 1.96\u00a0grams of heroin. 6 At the trial, the\u00a0prosecution case was that the applicant had been in possession of the drugs with the intention of supplying them to others. To prove that case, the\u00a0prosecution relied upon the\u00a0following pieces of evidence: (1) Evidence from PC Martin and PC Kennedy in relation to stopping the applicant, searching his vehicle and his subsequent arrest. (2) Evidence from DC Callow in relation to the\u00a0applicant's interview and the fact that he answered no comment to the\u00a0questions put to him. (3) Agreed facts in relation to the analysis of the\u00a0drugs and the examination of the applicant's mobile phones. (4) Expert evidence from Mr\u00a0Bryn Lewis in relation to the\u00a0analysis of the drugs and the evidence from the\u00a0applicant's mobile phone. He gave evidence in relation to the\u00a0street value of the drugs involved (heroin, cocaine and cannabis), the\u00a0fact that he would expect someone bulk buying drugs for their own use to have one packet rather than separate bags, as the\u00a0latter would have been prepared for street dealing, and a\u00a0method of ordering drugs in comparison to the\u00a0messages and calls on the applicant's mobile phones. (5) Evidence from DC\u00a0Manning, the\u00a0officer in the\u00a0case, in relation to the\u00a0investigation and the\u00a0fact that they could not download the\u00a0data from the applicant's iPhone since it was protected with a\u00a0personal identification number. 7 The\u00a0defence case was that the\u00a0applicant had the\u00a0drugs in his possession for his own personal use. He did not give evidence at trial, but it was submitted that on the prosecution case it was not possible to be sure of his guilt. The\u00a0applicant had admitted upon arrest that he was a\u00a0regular cannabis user, but it was not accepted that he had possession of the\u00a0drugs with the\u00a0intention of supplying them. The\u00a0issue for the jury therefore was whether they were sure that the applicant had possession of the\u00a0drugs with the\u00a0intention of supplying them. 8 After the\u00a0prosecution case had closed, the\u00a0defence made a\u00a0submission of no case to answer. The\u00a0judge gave a\u00a0ruling rejecting that submission. He rehearsed the\u00a0facts and the evidence that had been called. He reminded himself of the\u00a0test set out by this court in\u00a0R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039 and the fact that this case fell within the\u00a0second category referred to in that decision; namely, that the\u00a0prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, was such that a\u00a0jury, properly directed, could not properly convict. 9 The\u00a0prosecution relied upon evidence in relation to the\u00a0fact that the drugs were found in the\u00a0applicant's possession; the\u00a0expert evidence that street dealers would ordinarily have drugs in smaller quantities so that they were easier to sell, and messages on the\u00a0applicant's phone which appeared to suggest that the applicant had been involved in dealing class A drugs. 10 Accordingly, the\u00a0judge ruled that on\u00a0the\u00a0evidence before the jury there was a\u00a0case to answer in relation to Counts 1 and 2. 11 In making this application for leave to appeal, Mr\u00a0Chipperfield advances two grounds. First, he submits that the judge erred in refusing the\u00a0submission of no case to answer. The\u00a0evidence in the\u00a0case is purely circumstantial and he submits insufficient for a\u00a0properly directed jury to convict. Secondly, he submits that this court should allow to be admitted fresh evidence in the form of witness statements from DS Duffin and PC Faithful, two police officers who have provided witness statements in unrelated cases which were also prosecuted by Thames Valley Police, which suggest that the expert opinion of Mr\u00a0Lewis in the\u00a0present case was incorrect. The\u00a0fresh evidence it is submitted demonstrates that it is wrong to suggest that intent to supply can be inferred by possession of multiple single units of the same drug. 12 We have had the\u00a0advantage of seeing the\u00a0prosecution's Respondent's Notice in which the\u00a0following grounds of opposition are set out: (1) Whilst the\u00a0crown's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to be sure of the applicant's guilt. The\u00a0judge did not err in refusing the\u00a0submission of no case to answer. (2) Mr\u00a0Lewis was competent to give expert evidence in this case. He dealt with questions from counsel in an\u00a0honest way and his answers in relation to the\u00a0text messages were not necessarily inconsistent or indicative that he had ceased to be impartial. The\u00a0fresh evidence does not undermine the\u00a0safety of the convictions. 13 In refusing leave to appeal on the\u00a0papers, the\u00a0single judge gave the\u00a0following reasons: "Submission of no case 1. There was sufficient evidence to be left to the jury from which they could be sure that the proper inference was that the defendant was dealing in class A heroin and cocaine as well as cannabis at the relevant time. 2. Such an inference could be drawn from the nine wraps containing 2.60 grams of heroin and 3 clear plastic bags containing 1.96 grams of cocaine plus the existence of 3 mobile phones in the applicant's vehicle, even if there was only one message found on the phones potentially supportive of class A dealing. 3. These primary facts were supported by the admissible evidence of the prosecution expert Mr Lewis. His expertise and the bona fide nature of the opinions expressed were not and could not be challenged. He pointed to factors making it less likely that the class A drugs were for personal use including the packaging into smaller units rather than a single quantity. 4. The Judge was right to leave the issue of what to make of the evidence to the jury to decide. Fresh evidence 5. Two earlier statements dating from 2017 are now produced albeit with no form W. There was no defence expert at trial and there could have been had this been considered an important feature of the case. The evidence does not appear to be fresh in the sense of not available at trial with reasonable diligence or when and how they came to light. 6. The issue of how a personal user might be expected to buy a significant quantity of drugs in bulk for personal use is not a free standing issue, but whether in the particular context this was such a possible explanation of events as to preclude the jury being satisfied of the inference of supply. 7. Given the factual context of the present case, I am not persuaded that the new evidence would be admitted as forming evidence likely to undermine the safety of the convictions." 14 We entirely agree with the\u00a0reasons given by the\u00a0single judge, both in relation to the\u00a0ground relating to the\u00a0submission of no case to answer and the\u00a0ground suggesting that this was fresh evidence which ought to be admitted under s.23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. We are not persuaded that it is arguable that the criteria in s.23 are met in the\u00a0present case. 15 At the hearing before us, Mr\u00a0Chipperfield has focused his submissions, understandably, not on his first ground of appeal, but on his second. In particular, he has criticised the expert evidence of Mr\u00a0Lewis and said that it was evidence which flies in the\u00a0face of the\u00a0experience of anyone familiar with the criminal justice system in this country. He has also drawn our\u00a0attention to the\u00a0witness statement in particular of Mr\u00a0Duffin. He readily accepts that Mr\u00a0Lewis had provided a\u00a0report of what evidence he would give in\u00a0November\u00a02020 and that, in principle, the\u00a0evidence of a\u00a0defence expert could have been obtained in advance of the trial in the\u00a0present case. He informs this court that he simply thought that Mr\u00a0Lewis had made a\u00a0mistake in his report and this was therefore down to his oversight rather than anything else. 16 Having considered those submissions, we remain of the view that the single judge was entirely right for the reasons which he gave. The\u00a0fundamental points are as follows: (1) This was classically an\u00a0issue of fact which was within the\u00a0province of the jury. The\u00a0judge was right to reject the\u00a0submission of no case to answer. (2) The\u00a0criteria for fresh evidence in s.23 are clearly not met. The\u00a0evidence, if it was thought to be important, could reasonably have been obtained in advance of the trial in the\u00a0present case. 17 For those reasons, we refuse this renewed application for leave to appeal. __________<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LORD JUSTICE SINGH: 1 This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. 2 On 12 January 2022 in the Crown Court at Aylesbury the applicant (then aged 24) was convicted of Counts 1 to 3 on the indictment. Counts 1 to 2 were possessing a controlled drug of Class A with intent contrary to s.5(3) of the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7638],"kji_keyword":[7875,10954,7622,7621,9159],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-658737","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-famille","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-drugs","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-relation","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nREX v AMRIK SINGH BACHRA - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"REX v AMRIK SINGH BACHRA\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"LORD JUSTICE SINGH: 1 This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. 2 On 12 January 2022 in the Crown Court at Aylesbury the applicant (then aged 24) was convicted of Counts 1 to 3 on the indictment. Counts 1 to 2 were possessing a controlled drug of Class A with intent contrary to s.5(3) of the...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"9 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\\\/\",\"name\":\"REX v AMRIK SINGH BACHRA - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T10:06:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"REX v AMRIK SINGH BACHRA\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"REX v AMRIK SINGH BACHRA - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"REX v AMRIK SINGH BACHRA","og_description":"LORD JUSTICE SINGH: 1 This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. 2 On 12 January 2022 in the Crown Court at Aylesbury the applicant (then aged 24) was convicted of Counts 1 to 3 on the indictment. Counts 1 to 2 were possessing a controlled drug of Class A with intent contrary to s.5(3) of the...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"9 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\/","name":"REX v AMRIK SINGH BACHRA - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T10:06:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amrik-singh-bachra\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"REX v AMRIK SINGH BACHRA"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/658737","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=658737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=658737"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=658737"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=658737"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=658737"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=658737"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=658737"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=658737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}