DM v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1187
R v Osman Saeed
27 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1317
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually assaulting three women. He appealed his conviction, but the court said the trial was fair and that he didn't provide good enough reasons for his late appeal. His appeal was thrown out.
Key Facts
- •Osman Saeed was convicted of five offences on 9 November 2019: false imprisonment (Count 1), two counts of sexual assault (Counts 2 & 4), common assault (Count 3), and another sexual assault (Count 5).
- •He received a total sentence of 7 years' imprisonment.
- •The case involved three complainants, each alleging separate sexual assaults by Saeed.
- •The assaults allegedly occurred between November 2012 and February 2018.
- •Saeed's defense was that the accusations were false.
- •The trial involved issues of cross-admissibility of evidence, lost forensic evidence, and allegations of drink spiking.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply, preventing the publication of information likely to identify victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
The court considers applications for leave to appeal against conviction and extensions of time.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division procedure
In considering whether to stay proceedings due to lost evidence, the court considers whether the applicant would be at a disadvantage and whether the issue of lost evidence is capable of resolution.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division precedent
Evidence of drink spiking, even without definitive proof, can be admissible if it forms part of the overall picture presented by the complainants.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Cross-admissibility of evidence from multiple complainants is permissible if the judge gives appropriate directions to the jury.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division precedent
Outcomes
The application for leave to appeal and extension of time was refused.
None of the grounds of appeal raised an arguable basis for concluding that the conviction was unsafe. The judge's rulings on abuse of process, exclusion of evidence, cross-admissibility, and summing-up were deemed appropriate. The significant delay in applying for leave to appeal was not adequately justified.