R v Henderson Domingo
[2024] EWCA Crim 587
R v Mahboob Ali
9 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 77
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of robbery. A witness statement that went against his alibi was used in court, even though it was a bit messy how it was handled. The court still said the evidence to convict was strong enough. His sentence stayed the same except for a small correction about how much time he should get off for time already served.
Key Facts
- •Mahboob Ali was convicted of robbery.
- •The robbery involved the theft of a DPD van.
- •Ali's alibi involved lending his car to Rubena Begum.
- •Ali Nur Rahman was a witness whose statement contradicted Ali's alibi.
- •Rahman's statement was admitted as evidence, although its admissibility was debated.
- •Ali's 7-year sentence was challenged, as was the calculation of credit for time served on curfew.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of hearsay evidence.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, sections 114, 115, 116
Exclusion of evidence under section 78 PACE.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 78
Disparity of sentences.
Sentencing Guidelines
Credit for time spent on curfew.
Sentencing Act 2020, sections 320(4), 325(2)
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Overwhelming prosecution evidence and implausibility of the appellant's alibi, supported by Rahman's statement which undermined the defence despite procedural irregularities in its admission.
Appeal against sentence dismissed (except for curfew credit).
Sentence within guideline range, considering aggravating factors such as planning, violence, and false defence. Disparity with co-accused's sentence justified by differences in roles and circumstances.
Leave to appeal granted regarding curfew credit.
Failure to make a formal declaration in court regarding credit for time served on curfew.