R v Adam Courtney-Kasher
[2024] EWCA Crim 256
R v Khalifa Mughal & Anor
18 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1450
Court of Appeal
Two men were convicted of serious crimes, including rape. They tried to appeal, saying there wasn't enough evidence against them and that important evidence was lost by the police. The court said there *was* enough evidence and that even though the police messed up, it didn't stop the men from getting a fair trial, so their appeals were denied.
Key Facts
- •Khalifa Mughal (38) convicted of perverting the course of justice, rape, and supplying a controlled drug; Waseem Adalat (35) convicted of three counts of rape.
- •Both men appealed their convictions, raising issues related to trial rulings and an abuse of process application.
- •The case involved sexual exploitation of young girls XY (13-14 at the time of offenses in 2007-2008) and ZA (14-15 at the time of offenses in 2008).
- •Mughal's conviction for perverting the course of justice involved allegations of pressuring XY to change her account.
- •Adalat's conviction was challenged due to the loss of his passport and delayed police inquiries, hindering his ability to present an alibi.
- •The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and the Contempt of Court Act 1981 were relevant in the case.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to protect victims' identities.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Orders under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 can postpone publication of reports to avoid prejudice to the administration of justice.
Contempt of Court Act 1981
A no-case-to-answer submission requires sufficient evidence for a properly directed jury to convict (R v Galbraith).
R v Galbraith (1981) 73 Cr.App.R 124 CA
In assessing abuse of process due to lost evidence, the court considers whether the missing evidence represents a significant chance of being decisive or strongly supportive (D [2013] EWCA Crim 1592).
D [2013] EWCA Crim 1592
Outcomes
Mughal's appeals were dismissed.
The court found sufficient evidence to support his convictions, rejecting arguments regarding insufficient evidence on counts 8 and 25.
Adalat's appeal was dismissed.
The court determined that while the lost passport and delayed inquiries were prejudicial, they did not prevent a fair trial, particularly given the lack of a strong alibi defense presented by Adalat.