R v Muhammed Jan
[2023] EWCA Crim 164
R v Artig Mwami Maweja Emmannuel
18 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 212
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually assaulting several women. There was no DNA evidence, but CCTV showed him nearby at the time of the attacks. The court decided the evidence, although circumstantial, was enough to convict him. His appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •The applicant, Artig Mwami Maweja Emmanuel, was convicted of five counts of sexual assault.
- •The assaults involved slapping or grabbing the bottoms of several women in Didcot.
- •The applicant confessed to the offences but later retracted his confession.
- •CCTV evidence placed the applicant in the vicinity of the assaults.
- •There was no DNA evidence linking the applicant to the assaults.
- •The applicant was unrepresented at trial.
- •The applicant appealed his conviction, arguing that it was unsafe due to lack of DNA evidence, insufficient CCTV evidence, and lack of identification procedures.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to prevent the identification of victims.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
A conviction is unsafe if there is no evidence to support it.
Common law principles of appeal
Outcomes
Leave to appeal against conviction refused.
The Court of Appeal found that the conviction was not arguably unsafe. While there was no DNA evidence, the circumstantial evidence (CCTV placing the applicant near the assaults and the timing of his actions) was considered sufficient, and the lack of DNA evidence was adequately explained to the jury.