R v John Mylrea Caine
[2024] EWCA Crim 225
R v Imran Khan
5 December 2022
[2022] EWCA Crim 1592
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually assaulting a teenager. The court allowed evidence from another similar allegation to be used, even though the second allegation wasn't proven in court. The judges decided the evidence was fair to use and the sentence given was reasonable.
Key Facts
- •Imran Khan (appellant) was convicted of sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for an incident in January 2008 involving a 15-year-old boy (C).
- •The complainant (C) initially did not want to pursue the case, but reported it again in 2019 after the appellant ran for Parliament.
- •Evidence of a separate, unprosecuted sexual assault allegation against the appellant by witness A in Pakistan in 2010 was admitted as bad character evidence.
- •The appellant's defense was that the contact with C was minimal and non-sexual, and that contact with A was consensual.
- •The judge admitted A's evidence based on propensity and the unlikelihood of coincidence, emphasizing C's credibility was central.
- •The appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of bad character evidence under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, considering relevance to an important issue.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Propensity evidence must demonstrate a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged; a single incident may suffice if it has unusual or striking features.
R v Halliday [2019] EWCA Crim 1457
The court's discretion to exclude evidence under section 101(3) of the 2003 Act or section 78 of PACE if its admission would be unfair.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 & PACE
Considering the likelihood of coincidence in assessing credibility (Freeman and Crawford [2008] EWCA Crim 1863, McAllister [2008] EWCA Crim 1544, Hay [2017] EWCA Crim 1863).
Freeman and Crawford, McAllister, Hay
A single untested incident is not necessarily incapable of showing propensity (Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824).
Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824
Sentencing guidelines for sexual assault, considering harm and culpability categories.
Sentencing Guidelines
Definition of abuse of trust in sentencing (Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388, R v TF [2019] EWCA Crim 1785).
Forbes, R v TF
Judicial review standard of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
The judge properly admitted the bad character evidence; the prosecution case was not weak; the trial was fair.
Appeal against sentence dismissed.
The judge's findings of fact were open to him; the offence was correctly categorised; the sentence was within the appropriate range; immediate custody was justified.