R v Tahir Yasin & Ors

In a case involving alleged sexual offending after grooming, questions of capacity and genuine consent ordinarily belong to the jury. A judge should withdraw the case only where the evidence clearly shows that the complainant gave proper consent, or otherwise provides no proper basis for conviction. A complainant’s account of having consented must be assessed in its wider context, including vulnerability, dependency, grooming, alcohol and drugs. Grooming does not automatically negate consent, but may explain apparent compliance or acquiescence. Protective orders require necessity and proportionality, and the parties should have a fair opportunity to address the proposed order. In sentencing appeals, the court examines the overall sentence rather than the sentencing route, unless that route reveals a material error producing an excessive result.

Following a joint trial at Sheffield Crown Court, four appellants challenged convictions, sentences and restraining orders arising from historical sexual offences against two complainants. Yasin renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction, arguing that the evidence could not support findings that he had intercourse with C2 on one hotel occasion or that she had not consented. Amar appealed against sentence and his restraining order. Ajaib appealed against his restraining order after withdrawing his sentence appeal. Saddiq renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence, arguing that a sentence imposed while he was serving an earlier sentence should have been consecutive and then reduced for totality.

The central issues were whether the allegations against Yasin should have been withdrawn from the jury, whether the hotel evidence was sufficient, whether Amar’s sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the restraining orders were necessary and proportionate, and whether the sentencing judge had properly addressed totality.

1. Yasin’s conviction appeal. The renewed application for leave was refused. The court reaffirmed the approach in R v Ali and Ashraf [2015] EWCA Crim 1279: capacity and consent ordinarily present questions for the jury. In a grooming case, withdrawal of the case is appropriate only in a clear case where the evidence clearly indicates proper consent. The court also considered R v Usman [2021] EWCA Crim 502 and R v Adalat [2022] EWCA Crim 1538, which emphasise that the complainant’s assessment cannot be separated from the wider circumstances.
2. C2’s evidence of consent had to be considered alongside her age, vulnerability, care history, alleged grooming, dependency, and the use of alcohol and drugs. Grooming did not automatically vitiate consent, but it could mean that apparent compliance masked a lack of free and informed agreement. The evidence was sufficiently complex for a properly directed jury to decide the issue. The hotel evidence was also sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that Yasin was the relevant person. Leave was refused on both grounds.
3. Amar’s sentence. The custodial element of 14 years for two indecent assaults was not manifestly excessive. The court assessed the overall total, rather than the particular route by which it had been calculated, and the sentence fell within or close to the relevant guideline ranges. The sentence appeal was dismissed.
4. Restraining orders. A restraining order, as a protective order, could be made only where necessary to protect the victim against future harm and where its terms were proportionate to that risk. The absence of advance notice prevented meaningful consideration of the defence response. On the material before the court, necessity was not established. The restraining orders made against Amar and Ajaib were quashed. Ajaib’s sentence appeal had been withdrawn and was dismissed.
5. Saddiq’s sentence. The renewed application for leave was refused. The word “generally” in the totality guideline meant that consecutive sentences were not mandatory for unrelated offending. The judge had considered totality and was entitled to impose a concurrent approach where the resulting sentence was just and proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Yasin’s renewed application for leave was refused. Amar’s sentence appeal was dismissed, but his restraining order was quashed. Ajaib’s sentence appeal was withdrawn and dismissed, and his restraining order was quashed. Saddiq’s renewed application for leave was refused.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: Following trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced for historical sexual offences. The trial judge refused Yasin’s submission of no case to answer and made restraining orders against Amar and Ajaib.