R v Khayam Khurshid
[2023] EWCA Crim 1687
R v Sheraz Hussain
6 September 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1223
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of murder. He appealed, claiming new audio evidence proved his alibi. The court listened to the blurry audio and decided it didn't change anything. The court said the original evidence against him was strong and the new audio wasn't good enough to overturn the guilty verdict.
Key Facts
- •Sheraz Hussain convicted of murder alongside his brother and another individual.
- •Conviction based on evidence of gang association, CCTV, and mobile phone data.
- •The murder involved a planned shooting stemming from a gangland feud.
- •Hussain's appeal rests on fresh audio evidence from CCTV footage, potentially supporting an alibi.
- •The audio evidence is of low quality and the analysis is inconclusive regarding the speaker's identity and location.
- •Hussain's alibi is deemed weak due to inconsistencies.
- •The prosecution's case against Hussain is considered strong.
Legal Principles
The Court of Appeal may receive evidence not adduced at trial if it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice.
Section 23(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Factors to consider when deciding whether to receive evidence include: capability of belief, potential to affect the appeal, admissibility at trial, and explanation for non-adduction.
Section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Outcomes
Application to adduce fresh evidence refused.
The fresh evidence (audio analysis) does not affect the safety of the conviction. The audio is of poor quality and inconclusive; it doesn't establish the sound's source, and the circumstantial case against the applicant is strong.
Application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal refused.
The fresh evidence is deemed insufficient to warrant granting an extension of time.