R v Ghulan Mohammed

On a submission of no case to answer based on circumstantial evidence, the question is whether a reasonable jury, properly directed, could be sure of guilt. The judge must consider whether the jury could exclude all realistic possibilities consistent with innocence. The judge decides evidential sufficiency, not the weight or credibility of the evidence. Those matters remain for the jury. Where the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, permits the necessary inferences, including that acts were more than merely preparatory to the offence, the issue should be left to the jury.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Leicester of attempted rape and other offences. He renewed an application for leave to appeal against his conviction for attempted rape after a single judge refused leave. The prosecution case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the complainant’s injuries, the condition of her clothing, her contemporaneous statements, recordings of the appellant’s sexual intentions, and his account to the police. The trial judge rejected a submission of no case to answer. The central issue was whether a reasonable jury could properly convict on the prosecution evidence.

1. Renewed application refused. The Court agreed with the single judge that there was no proper basis for withdrawing the attempted rape count from the jury. A loss of time order of 28 days was made because the renewal was hopeless.
2. For a submission of no case to answer in a circumstantial case, the question is whether a reasonable jury, properly directed, could be sure that the defendant was guilty. The analysis must include whether such a jury could exclude all realistic possibilities consistent with innocence. This was the approach identified in R v Masih [2015] EWCA Crim 477.
3. The judge’s role is to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support the necessary inference. Questions of assessment and weight belong to the jury. The court therefore asks whether a reasonable jury could draw the inference of guilt, not whether the judge, every jury, or a particular jury would do so.
4. This was a classic circumstantial case. The evidence, taken at its highest, strongly suggested an attempt to rape, while the defence had points capable of being advanced at trial. Those competing matters were for the jury to weigh. The trial judge was entitled to conclude that the removal of the complainant’s underwear could constitute an act more than merely preparatory if the jury drew the prosecution’s proposed inferences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2025] EWCA Crim 1139: renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused; a 28-day loss of time order was made.
• Crown Court at Leicester: the trial judge rejected the submission of no case to answer on the attempted rape count, and the appellant was convicted.
• Single judge: leave to appeal was refused.