Ali & Ors v REGINA

Factual and Procedural Background

On 24 February 2016, following a trial in the Crown Court at The City before Her Honour Judge Wright and a jury, the applicants were convicted of numerous linked sexual offences that occurred in The City between the late 1980s and early 2000s. Their co-accused, including Company B representatives and other individuals, were also convicted, while two co-accused were acquitted.

Each of the three applicants applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence; all applications were initially refused by a single judge. The applicants renewed their applications for leave to appeal—one against conviction only, another against both conviction and sentence, and the third solely against conviction.

The offences involved multiple counts of indecent assault, rape, buggery, procuring underage girls for sexual intercourse, conspiracy to rape, procuring women to become common prostitutes, false imprisonment, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, attempted procurement of unlawful sexual intercourse, and abduction of an unmarried girl. Sentences ranged from ten to thirty-five years' imprisonment.

The trial judge gave detailed sentencing remarks describing the horrific nature of the offences. The applicants targeted vulnerable young girls, many in Local Authority care or with troubled backgrounds, grooming and coercing them into sexual exploitation, including prostitution. The judge highlighted the severe psychological harm caused to the victims and the wider community impact.

Each applicant played a distinct role, with one applicant and his brothers having reputations for violence and control in the area, exploiting their status to facilitate abuse. The victims showed considerable courage in coming forward and giving evidence despite facing accusations of fabrication.

The facts detailed specific complainants with individual accounts of abuse, including physical and sexual assaults, forced prostitution, and psychological harm. The applicants' defences ranged from denial of contact to claims of mistaken identity and disputes over the timing and nature of relationships.

The procedural history includes the renewal of applications for leave to appeal, with detailed consideration of the grounds raised, including fitness to stand trial, evidential rulings, and alleged inconsistencies in verdicts.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the applicant's significant medical condition rendered him unfit to stand trial, thereby breaching his right to a fair trial under Article 6.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence of a purported false complaint made by a complainant.
3. Whether the conviction against one applicant was unsafe due to alleged undermining of key complainant evidence.
4. Whether verdicts against another applicant were inconsistent, specifically regarding identity and involvement in conspiracy to rape versus direct sexual offences.
5. Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• One applicant argued that his medical condition (paraplegia) made it impossible for him to give meaningful evidence, thus violating his right to a fair trial.
• He also contended that the trial judge wrongly excluded evidence intended to show a complainant had made a false complaint, which could have impacted the credibility assessment.
• Another applicant claimed that the evidence of a key complainant was significantly undermined, rendering his conviction unsafe.
• A further applicant argued that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, particularly regarding his identity as the individual known by a nickname and his involvement in conspiracy versus direct sexual offences.
• Submissions were made challenging the appropriateness of the sentences imposed, considering factors such as disability and age at commencement of offending.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed examination of the grounds raised in the renewed applications for leave to appeal. Regarding the applicant's fitness to stand trial, the court accepted the trial judge's assessment, which was based on expert medical evidence, that the applicant was fit despite his paraplegia. The court emphasized that decisions on how the defence is conducted rest with the defendant and their legal team, rejecting suggestions that the judge should have unilaterally arranged for the applicant to give evidence in a particular manner.

On the issue of the proposed bad character evidence concerning a complainant's prior allegations, the court upheld the trial judge's ruling that there was no sufficient evidence to establish the complaint was false, thus properly excluding the evidence under the relevant statutory provisions.

In relation to the safety of another applicant's conviction, the court found that the complainant's evidence was thoroughly tested through cross-examination, and the summing-up was fair and balanced. The jury was entitled to assess credibility and reach a verdict accordingly.

The court addressed the alleged inconsistency in verdicts against the third applicant by analyzing the evidence relating to identity and involvement in conspiracy versus direct sexual offences. It found that the jury was entitled to convict on the conspiracy count based on evidence that the applicant arranged for others to have sexual contact with a complainant, without requiring proof that he personally engaged in sexual acts. The court rejected the inconsistency argument, noting that the jury may have accepted some parts of the complainant's evidence and rejected others.

Regarding sentencing, the court acknowledged the applicant's disability and early offending age but emphasized the severe aggravating factors, including the exploitation of vulnerable victims and the scale and nature of the offending. It concluded that the sentences imposed were appropriate, not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and necessary to serve as a deterrent.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED all renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

The direct effect is that the convictions and sentences imposed at trial stand. The court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's rulings or the jury's verdicts. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reaffirms established principles concerning fitness to stand trial, admissibility of bad character evidence, assessment of witness credibility, and the approach to alleged inconsistent verdicts.