R v Hamoda Alizarif Ebrahim
[2024] EWCA Crim 273
Mohammed Adnan Ali v R
7 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1464
Court of Appeal
A police officer sent inappropriate sexual messages and touched young people under his supervision. The court said this was a crime because he abused his power. His sentence was reduced slightly but he still went to prison.
Key Facts
- •Mohammed Adnan Ali, a police constable, was convicted of 15 counts of misconduct in public office and 5 counts of sexual assault.
- •The offenses involved sending sexualized messages and images to cadets and apprentices, and inappropriate physical contact.
- •The complainants were young people, some of whom were vulnerable.
- •The applicant's actions occurred over a period of approximately three years.
- •The applicant denied the allegations, but did not testify at trial.
Legal Principles
Common law offence of misconduct in public office has four elements: a public officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself; to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse or justification.
Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2005] QB 73
"Acting as such" in misconduct in public office means acting in the course of or in relation to his public office. The fact that the act is carried out when the officer is not on duty does not necessarily take it outside the bounds of the offence.
Shum Kwok Sher v HKSAR [2002] 5 HKCFAR 381; Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003); R v L [2011] 2 Cr App R 14; Knox [2011] EWHC 1629 (Admin)
The misconduct must be of "such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust". This requires a high threshold; the conduct must be so serious that it amounts to a crime. The likely consequences of the breach and the motive of the officer are relevant.
Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003); R v Dytham [1979] QB 722; R v Chapman and others [2015] 2 Cr App R 10
Factors to consider when determining if sexual misconduct is serious enough for misconduct in public office include: the nature and context of the relationship, power imbalance, whether the relationship was in exchange for power, victim vulnerability, pattern of conduct, and potential impact on objectivity or conflicts of interest. Consensuality is not determinative.
Crown Prosecution Service guidance
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction refused.
The court found sufficient evidence that the applicant was acting as a public officer and that his conduct was sufficiently serious to amount to an abuse of public trust. The messages were connected to his role and he exploited his position for sexual gratification.
Appeal against sentence allowed in part.
The five-year sentence for misconduct in public office was deemed excessive. The court considered the sexual assaults and misconduct to be connected and reduced the sentence for misconduct to three years, concurrent with the sentences for sexual assault, resulting in a total sentence of three years’ imprisonment.