R v Omar Ali

A jury direction on delay in reporting alleged offences is fact-sensitive and is not automatically required. Where the defendant does not suggest that delay prejudiced the defence, can give a detailed positive account, and the real issues are whether the acts occurred and consent, the absence of such a direction will not ordinarily make convictions unsafe. On sentence, there is no arguable error where the judge correctly categorises multiple rape offences, properly considers the offender’s age and maturity, and applies totality proportionately. A distinct electronic-communication offence may properly attract a separate consecutive sentence.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames, the applicant was convicted of six rapes, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and sending an electronic communication with intent to cause distress and anxiety. He received an overall sentence of 15 years and six months’ imprisonment.

A single judge refused permission to appeal. The applicant renewed his applications, alleging that the jury should have received a direction about the delay in reporting and that the sentence was excessive because of categorisation, age, maturity and totality. The central issues were whether the omission of a delay direction rendered the convictions unsafe and whether there was any arguable sentencing error.

1. Conviction. The renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction was refused. The necessity and content of any direction concerning delay depend on the facts and issues in the individual case.
2. The case was not properly characterised as a delay case. The applicant did not contend that the delay had prejudiced his defence. The real issues were whether the alleged acts had occurred and whether there had been consent. He was able to give detailed evidence about the relationship and advance a positive case on the allegations.
3. The alleged loss of evidence, including CCTV or evidence of demeanour, was speculative and unlikely to have resolved whether sexual activity was consensual. The applicant had also called witnesses about the general nature of the relationship. The ongoing on-and-off relationship provided context for the delayed complaint. The absence of a delay direction therefore did not make the convictions unsafe.
4. Sentence. The renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence was also refused. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the rape offending together as Category 1A offending under the Rape Guidelines, with a 15-year starting point, having regard to the number of offences, their duration, the specific acts, violence and severe psychological harm.
5. The applicant was aged between 21 and 25 when offending. His age had been properly considered, and there was no basis for treating him as particularly immature or reducing the sentence further. The sentence complied with totality and was just and proportionate. The six-month consecutive sentence for the electronic-communication offence was not open to valid criticism.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2023] EWCA Crim 1558, renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames — Following trial, the applicant was convicted on 29 June 2022 and sentenced on 23 September 2022 to a total of 15 years and six months’ imprisonment.