R v Sheraz Hussain
[2024] EWCA Crim 1223
R v Khayam Khurshid
14 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1687
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of murder. His appeal based on unreliable eyewitness testimony was rejected because other evidence, like phone calls and car movements, pointed to his guilt. A later attempt to add more evidence supporting his alibi failed because the new evidence was not credible and was presented too late.
Key Facts
- •Khayam Khurshid was convicted of murder and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life.
- •The murder victim was Cole Kershaw.
- •The case involved a pre-existing conflict between two groups.
- •Khurshid's conviction relied on identification evidence, telephone evidence, vehicle movement evidence, and his flight from the UK.
- •The identification evidence was challenged as weak.
- •Khurshid sought to amend his grounds of appeal with fresh evidence of an alibi.
- •The fresh evidence included statements from Asghar, Abid, and Brooks.
Legal Principles
Test for no case to answer: A judge should withdraw the case from the jury unless there is other evidence supporting the identification evidence.
Turnbull (1977) QB 224 at 228-231
Application of no case to answer considering circumstantial evidence: A reasonable jury, on one possible view of the evidence, could be entitled to reach an adverse inference.
R v Goddard and Fallick [2012] EWCA Crim 1756 at paragraph [36]
Test for admitting fresh evidence: The court considers whether the evidence is believable, has a reasonable explanation for its late submission, might allow the appeal, and serves the interests of justice.
Section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968; R v Vowles [2015] EWCA Crim 45
Test for amending grounds of appeal: The court considers delay, reason for delay, knowledge of the issue at the time of original advice, the overriding objective of justice, and the interests of justice.
R v James [2018] EWCA Crim 285 at [38]
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction refused.
The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, including the identification evidence, despite its weaknesses, combined with corroborating circumstantial evidence.
Application to amend grounds of appeal refused.
The court found the fresh alibi evidence to be unbelievable, lacked a reasonable explanation for its late submission, and did not significantly add to the evidence presented at trial. The interests of justice did not warrant its admission.