Ali & Ors, R v

A defendant who is fit to stand trial and has received appropriate adjustments remains responsible, with legal advisers, for the conduct of the defence. A trial judge need not impose an unrequested method for giving evidence.

Evidence said to show a complainant made a false earlier allegation requires a proper evidential basis that the statement was made and was untrue. A conviction is not unsafe merely because a jury acquits on related counts where the verdicts have a rational explanation. Sentence must reflect the offender’s role, exploitation of vulnerability, persistence and harm, rather than comparisons with other cases.

Following a jury trial at the Crown Court at Sheffield, the applicants were convicted of numerous linked historic sexual offences involving vulnerable complainants in Rotherham. Arshid Hussain received 35 years’ imprisonment, Basharat Hussain 25 years, and Qurban Ali ten years.

The renewed applications challenged, respectively, Arshid Hussain’s ability to give meaningful evidence and the exclusion of alleged false-complaint evidence; the severity of his sentence; the safety of Basharat Hussain’s conviction; and the consistency of Qurban Ali’s conviction for conspiracy to rape with acquittals on related substantive counts.

The central issues were whether any ruling or verdict rendered the convictions unsafe, whether the verdicts concerning Qurban Ali were irreconcilable, and whether Arshid Hussain’s total sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. All renewed applications for leave to appeal were refused. Arshid Hussain had been found fit to stand trial and the trial judge made appropriate adjustments, including a video link while prosecution evidence was given. The decision whether and how he should give evidence remained for him and his legal advisers. The judge was not required to impose an unrequested arrangement for him to give evidence. There was therefore no breach of Article 6.

2. The proposed evidence that complainant SW had made a false prior complaint was properly excluded. The court endorsed the requirement, drawn from R v E [2004] EWCA 1313, for a proper evidential basis that the earlier statement was both made and untrue before Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 100 could be engaged. That basis was absent. The renewed conviction ground was refused.

3. Arshid Hussain’s 35-year total sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. Comparisons with sentences in other cases were unhelpful. His leading role, deliberate exploitation of vulnerable girls, repeated sexual abuse, violence, procurement of others to abuse them, and use of some complainants in prostitution justified a very long deterrent sentence. His disability and youth when offending began had been taken into account.

4. Basharat Hussain’s challenge was a challenge to the complainant’s credibility. Her evidence had been thoroughly tested, the summing-up was fair and balanced, and credibility was for the jury. There was no basis to doubt the conviction’s safety.

5. Qurban Ali’s verdicts were not inconsistent. The jury could be sure that he was known as “Blind Ash” and had arranged for the complainant to have sex with men, while remaining unsure that he personally had sexual contact with her, drove a taxi, or drove her to Sheffield. That rational explanation defeated the inconsistency ground and, in any event, the verdicts did not satisfy the test in Fanning [2016] EWCA Crim 550.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and, in Arshid Hussain’s case, sentence: [2017] EWCA Crim 1211.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal: Initially refused all applications for leave to appeal.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 24 February 2016, a jury convicted the applicants of linked historic sexual offences. Sentences included 35 years’ imprisonment for Arshid Hussain, 25 years for Basharat Hussain and ten years for Qurban Ali.