Rehman, R v

Where a vulnerable complainant has communication difficulties, a trial judge may control the presentation of prior inconsistent accounts. The evidence must nevertheless be tested fairly. Agreed admissions and a representative interview extract may suffice where they enable the jury to assess the witness’s truthfulness and demeanour without causing confusion or unnecessary distress.

A judge should fairly summarise a non-testifying defendant’s relevant interview account. A failure to do so does not itself make a conviction unsafe. The appellate question remains whether, in the particular trial, the jury understood the simple defence issue and the omission undermined the safety of the verdict.

The appellants were convicted at Sheffield Crown Court of sexual offences arising from events involving C, a vulnerable 13-year-old who had run away to Bradford. Rehman was convicted of trafficking and rape. Rasheed was convicted of trafficking. Ali was convicted of sexual activity with a child.

They appealed against conviction, alleging unfairness in disclosure and trial rulings concerning C’s earlier Achieving Best Evidence interviews, her alleged previous false complaint, and possible audio material associated with hotel CCTV. Rasheed also contended that the judge had inadequately summarised his police interview. Rasheed and Ali sought to challenge their sentences.

The central issues were whether the trial process had permitted a fair assessment of C’s credibility and whether any defect in the summing-up rendered Rasheed’s conviction unsafe.

1. The appeals against conviction and the sentence applications were dismissed. The trial had been conducted fairly and the convictions were safe.

2. The judge was entitled to limit the use of C’s earlier Achieving Best Evidence interviews. C was a vulnerable child with substantial difficulties of understanding and communication. Fair testing of her evidence did not require every prior inconsistency to be put directly to her or every interview to be played. Admissions identifying the relevant lies, together with a substantial extract showing her demeanour when giving fabricated accounts, gave the jury sufficient material to assess her credibility.

3. The judge’s exclusion of the alleged false attempted-abduction complaint against Sebi Mahmood was within the legitimate exercise of discretion. The separate allegation formed part of other proceedings, some allegations in which had been accepted as true. Its admission could have generated satellite litigation. The jury already knew of numerous lies told by C and could assess her evidence against the objective material.

4. The Court refused an adjournment for further inquiry into possible hotel-CCTV audio. The defence had the CCTV footage and hotel witnesses, and identified no realistic way in which any possible audio would materially advance the case.

5. Applying and distinguishing R v Cadwell & Curley [2004] EWCA Crim 2395, the Court said that it would have been preferable for the judge to summarise Rasheed’s interview more fully. This was not, however, a case involving a detailed and complex interview account. The defence issue was simple, the interview summary was short, the jury had it during retirement, and the judge repeatedly directed attention to it. The omission therefore did not undermine the safety of the conviction.

6. Rasheed’s trafficking fell within category 1, culpability B, and the reduction from the six-year starting point adequately reflected mitigation. Ali’s offending was properly treated as category 1A because of the significant age disparity between a 20-year-old man and a 13-year-old child. His three-year sentence was not excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2017] EWCA Crim 106, dismissed the appeals against conviction and dismissed Rasheed’s and Ali’s sentence applications.

• Sheffield Crown Court — Convicted the appellants of the respective sexual offences and imposed the sentences challenged on appeal.