Khan Abdul v R
[2023] EWCA Crim 1477
R v Jannick Jensen
8 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1706
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape and sexual assault. He appealed, claiming mistakes were made during his trial. The appeal court looked at his claims but decided the original trial was fair and that he was rightfully convicted. The evidence against him, including a witness and DNA evidence, was strong enough.
Key Facts
- •Jannick Jensen was convicted of two counts of assault by penetration and one count of rape.
- •The complainant had no memory of the events due to intoxication.
- •The applicant's defense was that the sexual activity was consensual.
- •The applicant's conviction was upheld on appeal.
- •The appeal court considered new grounds of appeal raised by the applicant.
- •The applicant argued failures in disclosure and representation during the trial.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Restrictions on publication of victim information.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Outcomes
Leave to appeal against conviction refused.
The Court of Appeal found no merit in the original grounds of appeal, nor in the new grounds subsequently raised by the applicant. The complainant's testimony, supported by a friend's account and forensic evidence, was deemed compelling.
Application for extension of time to lodge further grounds refused.
The new grounds were deemed not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success.
Application for transcripts refused.
The transcripts were deemed unnecessary and would not add to the case.