R v Ibrar

A conviction is not unsafe merely because fresh material might invite a challenge to a complainant’s credibility. The appellate court must assess the reliability and probative force of that material. A later unprosecuted allegation and an unexplained prosecution decision, without direct evidence of the decision-maker’s reasoning or proper investigation of an alleged blackmail threat, may be too vague and tenuous to undermine the verdict. Material differences between the later allegation and the issue at trial may reinforce that conclusion.

The appellant was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of indecent assault. The prosecution depended principally on the complainant’s account, while the defence alleged fabrication. The jury heard and considered inconsistencies in her evidence.

Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the appellant appealed against conviction. He relied on material concerning the complainant’s later allegation of sexual assault against another man in 2006, which the Crown Prosecution Service did not prosecute. The central question was whether that material undermined her credibility so as to render the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The fresh material was too vague and tenuous to cast sufficient doubt on the complainant’s credibility and therefore did not render the conviction unsafe.
2. The fact that the Crown Prosecution Service had not prosecuted the man accused by the complainant in 2006 did not establish why that decision had been made. The electronic log suggested that an alleged attempt at blackmail may have influenced it, but there was no direct evidence from the decision-maker and no adequate information about whether the alleged threats had been investigated or what that investigation had shown.
3. The later allegation arose about two and a half years after the offence in issue. Its circumstances and the issue in that case—apparently whether sexual contact was consensual—were materially different from the issue at trial, namely whether the alleged incident had occurred at all.
4. The court did not decide whether the material would have been admissible under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That question would have fallen for the trial judge, equipped with fuller information. In any event, the jury had heard substantial cross-examination exposing inconsistencies in the complainant’s account and had nonetheless accepted her evidence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, dismissed the appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: On 2 March 2004, convicted the appellant of indecent assault and, on 26 April 2004, imposed a community punishment order of 100 hours.